Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
End Birthright Citizenship
Oleysa Suhareva traveled from Russia to Miami to give birth.
Last week, Michael Anton (of “The Flight 93 Election” fame) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Citizenship Shouldn’t be a Birthright,” which has caused paroxysms of huffing outrage from all of the predictable quarters of the left. A worse messenger for a perfectly sensible message would be hard to locate, but it isn’t merely the identity of the author that has people up in arms.
Monday, even the otherwise calm and reasoned Robert Tracinski wrote quite a doozy at The Federalist. Titled “Ending birthright citizenship will make the Republican Party look like the party of Dred Scott,” Robert responds to Anton’s op-ed with several hyperbolic claims that give undue credence to the left’s continuous charge that anything a Republican ever does (including breathe) is racist:
Anton’s proposal will be overwhelmingly interpreted as a declaration to black Americans that the Republican Party—the party that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place—now does not see them as equal citizens.
Excuse me, but this argument is so poor that it must be considered the leader in the clubhouse for non sequitur of the year. Not for nothing, when did Democrats start countenancing Republican policy proposals as anything other than racism? Welfare reform? That’s racist. Voter ID? Also racist. Border enforcement? Totally racist. Prisons and law enforcement? Super-duper racist. Even tax reform was pilloried as racist because it would disproportionately benefit whites according to its critics.
It’s true that the Democrats’ penchant for shouting “racist!” isn’t enough to dispel the possibility that this policy proposal didn’t stem from some wellspring of latent pro-white sentiment, however. So, what precisely is anti-black about the prospect of denying foreigners the right to have their children receive citizenship just for being born on our dirt? Nothing that I can see.
It’s an argument that doesn’t doesn’t even make sense, and no answer as to why is in the offing. Clearly, all African Americans who are currently citizens (and their children, by extension) are citizens. Anton’s proposal wouldn’t affect that one whit.
So, what exactly is the contemplated change? To understand this, you have to understand the history of Birthright Citizenship, which goes back (as most people will recall from history class) to the 14th Amendment. It states:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The reasoning behind this is pretty straightforward. The 14th Amendment was necessary to annul the horrific Dred Scott decision, and was worded as it was to nullify the idea that black slaves and their children couldn’t even be citizens of the United States by dint of some spurious claims of “inferiority.” This, of course, was back when people had the will to do the hard work required to amend the Constitution if legislation or Court decisions went against them, rather than trying to enforce their will through judicial fiat — but that’s another story.
The trouble here arises from the term “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which under modern understanding includes people whose parents were neither born here or naturalized; i.e., people who are not citizens or legal residents of this nation. This understanding, however, is merely an extension of the Wong Kim Ark case in which the Court held that the children of legal immigrants were granted citizenship. Congress could clarify that definition with a simple statutory modification.
But this is all dancing around the central issue: Why should we do away with birthright citizenship? First and foremost because there’s no reason for us to give something away to foreigners for nothing which is so intrinsically valuable. Citizenship is literally for sale in many nations of the world for a variety of prices. American citizenship (it should come as no shock) is worth a boatload to its possessor. A person with birthright citizenship can essentially never be deported, and thanks to the various and sundry welfare laws in our country, the nation is statutorily obligated to care for him in the event of his incapacity. This is a massive windfall for merely having had the good fortune to have been birthed within the confines of our nation.
The current policy also leads to absurdities, such as Birth Tourism, whereby foreigners (like from the left’s favorite country, Russia!) travel to the United States for the sole purpose of having their baby so that it will gain US citizenship … and thereby have a bolthole in the event things go sideways in their home country. To wit:
Why do they come? “American passport is a big plus for the baby. Why not?” Olesia Reshetova, 31, told NBC News.
Indeed. Why are we so stupid as to give something away which is obviously worth so much?
Reciprocity is another reason why this policy needs to be modified. If you’re a pregnant Spanish tourist and deliver your child here in the US, citizenship is automatic. If you’re an American in Spain? Buena suerte, chica. There’s simply no reason for us to have such an expansive policy when other nations don’t.
I can hear some people saying, “but American citizenship is a windfall that you were an unjust recipient of!” That is completely accurate. But I would point such people to other things such as “inheritance” or “having caring, intelligent parents” that are similarly “unjust” but about which conservatives are rightly nonplussed by comparison. Citizenship is a thing that we will to our children merely by having them.
What was the Founders’ opinion about this windfall? Well, we could also look at the Preamble of the Constitution for some guidance:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis mine]
To whom were the blessings of liberty to be secured by the formation of this nation? Ourselves and our posterity … our children. Explicitly not the children of foreigners who sneaked into the nation. Worth noting is that the notions of “Justice” and “Domestic Tranquility” surely must include fair and even enforcement of the law and an expectation of peace which comes from knowing that the people who surround you are also citizens or legal immigrants to the nation.
How many other nations in the world have birthright citizenship? Many, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, but not all. Is there precedent for revoking birthright citizenship? Yes. In 1986, Australia imposed restrictions upon birthright citizenship, holding that at least one parent of a child must have legal, permanent residency in Australia in order to gain citizenship there. It’s possible the deliberations of the Australian Parliament in Canberra centered solely upon the need to deprive non-whites of Australian citizenship, but somehow I doubt it. India (curiously, another Anglosphere nation) abolished it utterly in 2004. Worth noting: neither of these countries were subducted by vengeful flames into the Earth’s molten core for daring to remove birthright citizenship either.
Given my druthers, citizenship and residency would work on a sliding scale, whereby people gain full citizenship in our nation via a demonstration of merit. That isn’t the world we live in, and I am utterly resigned to that fact. But I’m also not the sort of person who will allow a presumed image of perfection to be the enemy of the good. Therefore, down with birthright citizenship. It is both a travesty and a con played upon our children and the future of our nation.
Published in Immigration
I present an even more extreme hypothetical.
If a pair of foreign spies from a hostile nation had a child in the US, does the child gain US citizenship?
I fail to see how limiting birthright citizenship to the children of lawful permanent residents and citizens is nativist. Permanent residents and naturalized citizens start off as foreigners, obviously.
This statement is a perfect example of how liberals project their own subconscious racism onto conservatives. We can’t help what color or ethnicity foreigners are, or people south of the border are. If we want to adopt a sane policy to control immigration, that policy should be judged on its merits. We don’t abdicate our right to do so just because it’s possible such an effort could have ulterior motives. And the constant harping on such ulterior motives is proof that our opponents on this issue have absolutely no justification for their views other than benefiting their own political faction.
Yes, yes, we must adopt the Left’s “racist” narrative and never, ever rationally discuss this issue based on the merits, because…? Someone might be offended?
This would have no impact on the children of American citizens (I still need convincing on the permanent legal resident thing, if the parent has no intention of becoming an American citizen and retains citizenship (loyalty) to another nation).
We’re not talking about whether adults are loyal to the US. In fact, we’re making a good-faith assumption that anyone who is already a citizen is loyal, and, therefore, their children are automatically made citizens. This despite the examples where birthright citizenship was granted to the children of commie-lovin’ anti-American citizens, like Obama’s mother, for example.
Why the derogatory language?
How do those statements go together?
Meaning?
Are you seriouslybsaying that “spawn” is derogatory? Or is it the word “”illegally”?
Inheritance isn’t an apt comparison as it doesn’t replicate upon birth.
Spawn. Yes, seriously. Relevant excerpts from the OED:
I acknowledge you might not have meant it that way, but it’s the connotation I learned. That’s part of why I asked for clarification.
@johnyoo: First, thank you for Law Talk and for joining this conversation. Your handling of Jon Stewart stands out in my mind as the model of how to defeat progressive blowhards.
In the original version of this article I explicitly cited Chief Justice Taney’s vile majority opinion in Dred Scott which held that slaves were inherently inferior to whites, which is why the 14th amendment was required to purge it from case law. I’m also fairly certain that the noble intent of that Amendment’s authors were not intended to provide citizenship to tourists.
There is also a vast difference between what I have advocated for here and “nativism.”
I am for immigration… But immigration which will build the national reserves of cultural and monetary capital. By that I mean that we have the ability to discriminate among those whom we invite to join our nation, (as is the right of all sovereign nation-states) and we should.
There is certainly nothing wrong with inviting the economically productive, wealthy, and mathematical and scientific geniuses to immigrate to our nation irrespective of race.
Selectivity is decidedly not nativism however. Given that we are able to be choosy, what indicates that we shouldn’t be?
it is a huge problem these days, and it must be solved. We cannot allow people to sneak in here, drop babies, and then piggyback in on those kids. We should not allow those kids in with citizenship just because of mom’s illegal entry. Are you kidding me? Why do you think this is a good idea?
You can’t take it with you, just like wealth. I would also allow people to sell their citizenships too, at any rate.
How would that work? What do you have in mind?
Hey, yeah, you’re right! I looked it up, too, and what I thought was simply a biological term for offspring is, for some reason, defined as “derogatory”.
but I don’t take it back, because I believe anyone who sneaks into our country illegally, and their progeny, deserve derogation.
And I ask again: why not?
I can think of a number of people unworthy of American citizenship by your standards who would qualify based on accident of birth and a number of people born in other countries to foreig parents who are Americans to their core.
I have a counter proposal: all people born here regardless of bloodline are granted only provisional citizenship until their 18th birthday upon which all persons wishing to remain citizens must pass the US citizenship test.
I think it apt to remind all those in favor of this proposal to end a century of US tradition and law of Chesterton’s Fence.
Have you not learned your lesson? I do not believe you can use the gender specific term mother in legal docs anymore.
http://ricochet.com/archives/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/
You don’t have to sell me. The Supreme Court disagrees with us, however.
I’m going for fruit that can be reached here before we try for stretch goals.
I find this attitude very unjust to innocent children.
Why not what?
Shawn, don’t we have an interest in ensuring children who were born here — and are now adults who have lived here their entire lives, are culturally, linguistically, and maybe even patriotically Americans — have citizenship and are engaged in our civic culture? If birthright citizenship is repealed, there could be multiple generations of people who are born here illegally, grow up here, have more non-citizen children, and never become Americans. That seems like a long-term bad idea — a second class (non)citizenry. A caste.
How so? A foreign spy can already obtain citizenship through normal naturalization, and citizenship doesn’t in and of itself grant access to any classified information or opperations. Do you think the CIA wouldn’t do a thorough background check on a US citizen who grows up in Russia and at 30 comes to the US and applies for a job with them?
I don’t see how it makes a difference or how this would be easier than turning or bribing someone already in possession of national security information. If anything having all these wealthy Russian and Chinese brats with an easy way out of their [expletive]hole countries creates more problems for their regimes, as it loosens their grip on them ever so slightly.
What if this was not applied retroactively, as Gary and Tom suggested?
Because we alone founded a nation not based on blood but ideals. Universal Ideals we believe apply to all men. And it is because of those ideals that we are great and exceptional, and able to be the largest, most stable ethnicly diverse nation on Earth.
Furthermore what is the cut off for your ethnic heritage? Do Catholics get to be part of that? Slavs? Jews? Blacks?
Any thoughts on expanding this idea out to include the entire population, a la Starship Troopers?
Interesting post, thanks for the link.
I don’t even think retroactive is an option.
Anyway, my statement above is forward looking. Anybody who lived here and fell outside whatever categories the law specified (legally or illegally), would have offspring who would not be citizens, whose offspring in turn would not be citizens, ad infinitum, right? I’m not interested in creating non-citizen bloodlines. That’s too much like the old European system of nobility, only inverted. After a generation, especially two generations, the family origin shouldn’t matter. People who grow up here are as American as I am. It’s best if we acknowledge reality.
Editor Note:
Edited for tone. -- JonWhy do they not deserve derogation?
I don’t think retroactive would be an option either. I would imagine if something like this was possible it would need to be cast into the future with caveats in place for people already here.
Why would any blameless child deserve derogation because of the accident (from their perspective) of their birth? What kind of useless cruelty are you promoting?
untill now. We cannot continue allowing indigestible clumps of hostile foreigners in. It. Is. Not. Working. Out.
I’m not talking about kicking out any actual citizens based on race or religion. I’m not proposing ethnic cleansing, nor asking Slavs, Jews and Blacks who are citizens to leave. .but we don’t need therefore to admit every infant popped out on our soil by a woman who is here illegally.
The point of the OP was: we must eliminate birthright citizenship here. It is nothing more than a lure, an invitation, to non-citizens to sneak in here to ..ah, what possible term would fail to offend? Let’s just say, to give birth. Which they do. And after which, in my opinion, they should be expected to take their progeny back to the Old Country.
Birthright citizenship has got to go. It makes no sense.
That’s just an invitation for people to keep breaking in.