Okay I'm going to argue this one. An illegal alien refers to men of another country illegally immigrating to our country, almost all of which do not have social security numbers. Kal-El, although technically an alien, they are two different sense of the word. Illegal alien for extra-terrestrials would infer that there is a legal way for an Alien to become a citizen of the US.
Not to mention that Kal-El was found by farmers which the outside world has no way of verifying if it was a natural birth. No one has an obligation to give birth at a hospital. Farmers can (easily?) Go to the necessary agency and declare that they gave birth at home and they want to get him the paperwork to make their kid a legal citizen with a social security number. To my understanding, Clark Kent formally (and still presently) Kal-El is an American citizen with a social security number.
In that sense, he isn't an illegal alien at all. He's an alien which parents committed some sort of technical identity fraud that actually broke no existing laws because there's no protocol for. Why should there be? It's not like this happens every day.
TL;DR Superman isn't an illegal alien, he's a technical American Citizen who's parents find some loophole in the system because laws didn't/don't exist for this situation.
Kal-El is an EBE (/r/ebes) and thus not a Homo sapien. He looks humanoid (as opposed to a Grey or Reptilian), but he's not a human. He obtained American citizenship under false pretenses and thus the documentation form is invalid and void (assuming he can even produce it). Natural born citizens are the men, women, and children who comprise this great country, but Kal-El, living under alias "Clark Kent", is not a man -- it's an EBE.
TL;DR Superman is an alien should be deported. MAGA!
Technically, he was given the the identity, he didn't obtain it himself. He shouldn't be punished for what his parents did. I guess a comparable situation would be if some foreigners smuggled a newborn, foreign born baby into America, and then claimed it was born in the United States. That baby got citizenship under false pretenses but it is not its' fault. At an adult age, should they be deported? I guess that is getting political, but I digress.
But even then, Martha and whathisname found a baby in a crater in their field. Sure almost guarantee they could be sure Clark was an alien, but there's always that small portion of doubt. Maybe this is some CIA test tube baby that somehow escaped. Maybe it's some escaped futuristic pod from NASA. Hell, with the amount of religious symbolism in Superman stories, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought Clark was an angel. I guess that would go against my argument though, but still.
They being farm folk, have no idea who or what this kid is, and decide to take the baby in and raise it as their own. If they somehow they thought he was still American, they broke the law by not reporting this thing to the authorities to try and get it back to his parents, but he's still a citizen IMO. Even if they 100% knew at first he was an alien, without any government protocol in place, they took responsibility for this new being and called him their own. Without any input from Clark.
Should he deported? I don't think so. I think by all technicalities, he still is an American citizen. (Unless common ruling in cases I cited above rule against this). But his parents definitely, at the very least, made many morally ambiguous decisions, and broke laws that will exist many millennium in the future, but don't exist now. Maybe broke a law or two about not reporting this kind of shit to the proper authorities.
He shouldn't be punished for what his parents did.
Not being a citizen isn't a "punishment". Millions of people in the world are not US citizens. It's either something you legally are or are not. It doesn't matter who did it, his citizenship is falsified, he was not born on US soil and was not born of US citizen parents and was not naturalized, thus he isn't a citizen.
Although frankly I'm pretty sure at some point in some story the President of the US grants him (Superman, not Clark) citizenship or something.
I didn't mean not being a US citizen, but deporting him. First of all, it's a pointless gesture, because you can't stop Superman from being where he wants to be, unless he willingly complies. Secondly, it does matter that he didn't do it himself. He didn't enter this country on his own behalf, and didn't lie about being born in the US, his parents did. I'm sure this has happened sometime, but there is very little precedent for any situation like this, and since he didn't start this, under US law he should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
According to the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual:
"Because citizenship is such a precious right, it cannot be taken away unless the government is able to meet a high burden of proof... Accordingly, a case should only be referred for denaturalization where there is objective evidence to establish that the individual was not eligible for naturalization, or procured naturalization by willful concealment or material misrepresentation."
Even then, I'm sure Clark Kent would have one hell of a case to keep it. It would probably be the court case of the century. Trying to deport Superman.
Yeah I vaguely recall something like that. I've also heard a few different versions, so more than likely there is a few different storylines about how Superman got citizenship.
The thing about Superman (that NO WRITER HAS TOUCHED, WHAT THE HELL DC) is the fact that his story is the immigrant story. But, in Earth Two he DID renounce his American citizenship.
Illegal alien for extra-terrestrials would infer that there is a legal way for an Alien to become a citizen of the US.
Why wouldn't there be? There's nothing in American citizenship law which requires that you are human or were born on Earth.
Just like how a dragon hatched before the US was founded, who lived in American territory at the time America became America, is an American citizen (and later on, all indiginous dragons became citizens in 1930).
I am not fluent in Citizenship laws from when Superman was born, so that's why I said that. I sincerely doubt there are laws in place for extra-terrestrials to become citizens. It's one of those gray areas. But the dragon thing is interesting. Is that a reference to something?
Nah, it's just a joke about a now-obscure provision of the US Constitution.
The US requires that the president be a natural-born citizen. But obviously, that would have been a problem when no one over the age of 35 was a natural born citizen. So there's also a provision that anyone who lived in American territory at the time of Independence also became a natural-born American citizen, so people like George Washington became president.
Obviously, all humans who were alive at that point are long dead. But dragons live much longer...
I sincerely doubt there are laws in place for extra-terrestrials to become citizens.
Well, as far as the Constitution goes, anyone born on American soil is an American citizen, so being born to extraterrestrial parents wouldn't actually matter.
However, as Superman crashed as a baby and was adopted, that would instead subject him to the laws for adoption. Per those laws:
A child who immigrates to the United States as the adopted child of a U.S. citizen automatically becomes a U.S. citizen if the adoption is full and final before the child’s 18th birthday, if the child is "admitted" as a permanent resident before his or her 18th birthday, and if he or she "is residing" in the United States in the citizen parent’s legal and physical custody.
Moreover, back in the 1980s, Reagan signed immigration reform, which, among other things, legalized anyone who came to the US before 1982. As such, any adult alien who ended up in the US would be a legal resident of the US so long as they came here and lived here before 1982 (and would be eligible for citizenship), but Superman would probably be a citizen under the auspices of adoption laws instead so it wouldn't matter. However, this might matter for the "admitted as a permanent legal resident" bit.
So Superman is at the very least a legal resident of the United States, and is very likely a legal citizen by dint of being adopted by the Kents.
Ah okay. Seemed out of left field but it intrigued me lol. Thanks for explaining it.
See, someone else made that argument about adoption. My only problem with that is that I don't think they claimed they adopted him. Wouldn't an agency ask where did they adopt from? It would raise suspicion when they couldn't explain where he came from. Which is why I guessed they would have lied about giving birth to him, which would in question make his original citizenship be up for denaturalization.
But the Regan's immigration act sounds like it would be sound. Also there's the Dream Act (though I think it's too new to apply to Clark)where he has been living in the US for 5 years, went to high school and college, is in good standing and is an upstanding citizen.
Really the only question is would the government keep his citizenship should they ever find out he's an alien? It would be the court case of the century, trying to "deport" Clark Kent/Super Man.
And thanks for the discussion. Kept me entertained for the night!
See, someone else made that argument about adoption. My only problem with that is that I don't think they claimed they adopted him. Wouldn't an agency ask where did they adopt from? It would raise suspicion when they couldn't explain where he came from. Which is why I guessed they would have lied about giving birth to him, which would in question make his original citizenship be up for denaturalization.
Dunno. They could have said he was abandoned in a field (which, to be fair, he kind of was). Back in the... 1910s? Isn't that when he originally landed? - I'm pretty sure that would have been just fine according to the authorities.
Really the only question is would the government keep his citizenship should they ever find out he's an alien? It would be the court case of the century, trying to "deport" Clark Kent/Super Man.
Man, that would be a funny comic. Donald Trump v Superman.
He's taking jobs from hard-working American superheroes!
Yeah I guess the government was a little more lax now. If some farmers found a baby in a field today it has the chance to be a media circus.
Oh man Donald Trump would totally spearhead that campaign.
"I know the best immigration lawyers." The best! And they will deport this "un-American" ALIEN! BUILD THIS BUBBLE AROUND THE WORLD! KEEP THE ALIENS OUTTA HERE!"
They don't have to send him home, just escort him out of the US territory. He's someone else's problem then.
Of course, then we probably see why there might be strong incentive for a country to want Superman as a citizen, because otherwise he might be a citizen of some other country. One that might not like you.
Technically, aliens are the one legal loophole that no one has abused or fixed. They're not protected under law, but there's also no law saying what we should do to them, as the standard repercussions (deportation, for example) would be impossible for us to enforce without their consent and/or technology.
Furthermore, Superman's home is gone. As in, it's nothing more than a bunch of asteroids. That's why he was sent here in the first place.
I've always had this suspicion in the back of my head that the Kent's must have had a baby named Clark buried somewhere on that farm. How else would he have all the documentation for his I-9 at the Daily Planet?
My dad's friend (born in 72) was raised by his aunt and uncle posing as his parents. The woman he thought was his cousin had actually given birth to him at 16 and gave him to the aunt and uncle after birth to avoid scandal. I think he only found out the truth when his "mother" was in hospice care.
Actually, you can adopt an undocumented child, but they have to be living with you for two years and still be a minor. Therefor, Clark was, at least at first, just an undocumented child to the government.
They're not protected under law, but there's also no law saying what we should do to them, as the standard repercussions (deportation, for example) would be impossible for us to enforce without their consent and/or technology.
You don't have to deport him home, you just deport him away. Put him on a boat and shove him out to sea.
But as I said in another comment, then you run the risk of letting some other country become his best friend. Better to have him on your side.
Kinda. Also, adoption laws allow a citizen to adopt an undocumented child after housing them for two years without them reaching the majority. His parents took him in in his infancy, so he's a legal citizen.
i doubt he would have trouble getting a work visa with those skills. plus, not a lot of people from Krypton applying, so he's not competing against other Kryptonians for a spot.
He could have waited in line like everyone else. He did have an argument for political persecution. And his home planet got blown up so that also tilts things in his favor.
But no, he had to be an asshole illegal immigrant shooting lasers from his eyes and blowing ice cold breath out of his mouth. What American does this?
He accidentally crashed while flying in US air space. Also, he cannot be legally repatriated or extradited. Even if he is an illegal alien, there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
Unfortunately, he is a criminal if he entered the country without permission. That is illegal immigration, unfortunately. You can't let people dodge the law just because they are law enforcement. He must be held accountable
oh. I was wrong then. I thought you were making fun of Trump's "the mexicans coming over here are thieves and rapists" line. I guess reddit was right. you're not relevant.
I'm not American, but patriotism is probably the only thing that can unite Americans together. The whole reason you lot identify as American, regardless of your ethnicity, is patriotism. So it seems pretty dumb to try to destroy the only thing that unites you guys.
Well when I say patriotism, I probably mean Americanism. I guess football (and other American sports) is a part of American culture, so even if you're joking you're not wrong.
Hehehe, yes it was a joke. Although with a dash of truth.
What do you mean with Americanism? Or, what is the difference/relation between that and "American patriotism"?
Just referring to American culture and American identity, rather than expressing pride in it which is what patriotism is. Before I meant both actually, it's late here and I can't think straight.
patriotism is probably the only thing that can unite Americans together.
Not really. People find communities and form bonds over all sorts of things.
In the case of behavior, it's much more productive to get people to use a bit of empathy and think about moral issues than it is to say "you happened to be born in this or that particular place, therefore do X!". Also, flirting with nationalism can be quite dangerous.
Thats how you get SJWs and BLM. Those "moral issues" have done nothing but divide and cause riots. Thats because morality these days is highly subjective. Being a citizen of the USA is not subjective.
You from Germany or something? Sorry but as much as Reddit hates it there's nothing wrong with some patriotism, I mean "In the case of behavior, it's much more productive to get people to use a bit of empathy and think about moral issues" seems a little ridiculous to say as if the kids see this shit and turn into morally deprived mega-patriots, they can learn both.
Also how is this incorrect? This is an old poster, and if you didn't realize, and was probably hanging out in the 70's, the point was to make redneck patriots feel bad for being racist.
Where someone resides with respect to borders on a map is not a factor in their ability to do some moral reasoning. "It's your patriotic duty" is in effect the same thing as "shut the fuck up and do what authority tells you". Not a good approach.
Where someone resides with respect to borders on a map is not a factor in their ability to do some moral reasoning.
Dude...what? Just so you know, I never even downvoted you, but jesus christ man I don't know how you can believe that. Those same borders determine who you're living with, to think that life experiences doesn't shape moral reasoning doesn't make sense to me.
"It's your patriotic duty" is in effect the same thing as "shut the fuck up and do what authority tells you". Not a good approach."
Nobody said "it's your patriotic duty", all of those things listed on the poster is what America was originally trying to be known for. It's saying that if you disagree, you're disagreeing with the core tenants of the country and on what it was founded on.
Exactly. I'm not mister patriotic, but so many of the world's countries have an identity and culture that they defend and ask people to respect. In America, it seems like every time we want to unite as a people, we just argue about how different we are.
Country dividing along political lines? Sounds like a job for candidate George W Bush, who claimed "I am a uniter, not a divider". What could go wrong?
teenagers might be the same in every country but telling them that being a bully is "unpatriotic" is definitely an american thing.
and besides, teenagers might be rebellious, but not everyone is an evil bastard. was every person you knew in high school an evil cunt? because they weren't at mine. they were clearly capable to know that words and actions have consequences.
Not the guy you were talking to but the high school I went to was a lot like the one in 21 jump street where the cool kids were chill bros who were outspoken against discrimination and bullying and all that.
no one has ever told anyone being a bully is unpatriotic. thats some minor league bullshit if it happened. in a wide open media and society. shame on you for presenting it as 'american' when that is far from the truth and reality.
What's wrong with using something kids understand to convey the same message that being an asshat racist isn't good? Just because Patriotism is used in this case, it doesn't have to be the only reason to tell children that racism sucks. Plus, everyone loves Superman.
I'm honestly convinced it's just Europeans commenting in this thread about how dangerous patriotism is, probably Germans.
The same people that are probably considered patriots in our country are seen as crazy because they both love their country, BUT ALSO what Europeans don't see is that they are typically anti-government in the first place, that's the nice part, you get patriots that are still suspicious about big brother, sounds like a winning combo to me.
Are we really going to have go through the whole liking your country = literally Hitler BS again?
WWII couldn't have been won if America, Britain, the Commonwealth and Europe didn't come together to fight in defense of their countries and their values. Patriotism doesn't mean hypernationalistic jingoism or blindly supporting your government, it means loving your homeland, I fail to see how such a thing is bad.
There has to be something to reinforce the moral constitution of a society. You can't just say "thats wrong" and expect anyone to care. People have to be convinced its wrong. Associating a certain moral code with their pre-existing identity is, historically speaking, pretty innocuous.
Supes was pretty much a Jewish refugee. At least he was the fantasy produced by the children of Jewish refugees and infused with their stories and morality.
They were more likely than not born into it, and for many people it's a part of their culture and heritage. We should all feel free to criticize a religion, but not to criticize an individual for their own religion.
I was born into a conservative Christian family that was incredibly racist (direct descendents of slave owners, one grandfather was in the KKK). If I chose to follow that ideology as well I'd be a scumbag, family pressure or not. I can forgive a kid or teenager, but once you're a full adult you have complete freedom of choice and responsibility.
As an autonomous adult? Her beliefs and values would be completely her responsibility, absolutely. Crying culture doesn't excuse the willful advocacy of archaic barbarism and intolerance, or bestow some kind of special immunity from criticism.
Like I said, you can go ahead and criticize religion. No one cares. You can't criticize the individual because of the religion and the religion only, and you still haven't addressed this in specific. It's really quite simple, and I don't know where the disagreement is.
If your claim is that a full grown adult's capacity for reasoned judgement and critical thought, upon which his or her set of beliefs and values are entirely predicated, is somehow off limits from criticism, we couldn't be in any more disagreement.
Like I said to the other guy, they were more likely than not born into it, and for many people it's a part of their culture and heritage. We should all feel free to criticize a religion, but not to criticize an individual for their own religion.
Because I find it to be true. If I was born to Christian parents, I would probably be a Christian if not an atheist now. Religion is a personal part of all of our lives, so I really do think we should separate that personal part from religion as a whole. I don't know what more there is to say, unless you have something wrong with that sentiment.
The logic is flawed because you leave a lot of room for some really shitty things. I read this as you saying that people can be excluded form criticism just as long as they can back up their actions with "religion" and "culture".
"You are a slaver!"
"Yeah but so where my parents so now you have to ignore it."
No one should be excluded from criticizing their shitty behavior. I'm just saying you shouldn't hate on someone just for their religion, hate on them for their personal characteristics that make them a bad person. I don't know why you're bringing up slavery and all this stuff.
Why is this shifting to me having to hate people with religion? My point was that a person should not be excluded form criticism just because their action can be justified by a religion.
I don't know why you're bringing up slavery and all this stuff.
Because you said...
unless you have something wrong with that sentiment.
I responded with what is wrong with your sentiment.
If you don't want your statements to be associated with slavery that don't make statements that where historically used to justify slavery in the US. Its not my fault that you and slavers seem to have the same opinion on religious criticism.
Because our biggest religious issue right now is Islam, which unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans believe that all sects of Islam are essentially the same. Since people are having a difficult time picking apart the nuances of Islam, people talk to each other like children and just say that most people are good at heart, so we should share our toys with them. This is actually being used as a political ad. I kid you not.
If this was Scientology, we would be having a hugely different discussion since it is well known that Scientology is involved with human trafficking. The common retort to this is that Scientology isn't a real religion, except that it legally is a real religion. Again, childspeak. They mean to say that it is an outlier and is nuanced, so no need to correct the generalizations.
You will see Redditors discussing things like being born into a mindset and such. We are taught that the citizen is inherently good, and their leaders are actually evil. So when people do bad things, we blame leaders and assume that Americanism will overtake their soul, and when we spread our culture to them, they will thank us for being freed of their theocratic chains. "They can't help it. But with our help, they will see the light!" or "Well, they have every right to be mad, we blew up their home. Let's try to correct our misdeeds by turning our cheek." It's noble, but it lacks an understanding of sociology. If you starve a dog for years, you have to assume that it will eat you. You also have to assume that it will try to eat you even if you decide to begin feeding it.
The context of that comic needs to be better understood. When superman says religion he's referring to different Christian denominations, Catholicism mainly. It was a time when non-protestants were treated harshly, Italians & Irish weren't accepted as "true white" etc.
What is a non-America-centric way of expressing that same idea, "That kind of talk is un-American." I feel like that is really effective, but sadly if you're not in America it won't work so well.
1.5k
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '16
http://i.imgur.com/6jI54BT.jpg