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
Can anyone quantify the supposed problem at hand?
How many babies are born in the US to resident aliens, to nonresident aliens, and to illegal immigrants?
How many of them came here because of birthright citizenship, and how many just happened to have their babies while here?
What are the negative effects? Are there any positive effects?
What are some other problems of comparable size and importance, so we can prioritize? Is this more important than the trade wars, but less important than peace with North Korea, for example?
Most importantly, if birthright citizenship were repealed, how much would it actually reduce illegal immigration?
Our daughter-in-law is a Japanese citizen. They went to the US Embassy in Tokyo before their marriage to start her paperwork to obtain permanent residency status in the States. They were told to get married in Japan first. The embassy official told them that if the Japanese government recognized their marriage as valid it would speed up the process because the US government would recognize the marriage as valid.
Their two children were born in the States, and they are considered US citizens. They have US passports, and they also have Japanese passports. The Japanese government recognizes their US citizenship, and considers them Japanese citizens as well.
I’ll have to ask my son if they can retain their dual citizenship for the rest of their lives. By the way if I remember correctly she was granted her permanent residence status in less than four months after their marriage in Japan, but she did wait to enter the US until she was granted permanent residency.
The success of past experience. And the humility to realize that we are not nearly wise enough to judge the worth and potential of a any human being. Especially in economic terms. If our Government could be so wise as to look at a worker from Mexico and one from Germany and determine who will be most valuable economically why can they not do the same with those born here? Perhaps they can allocate labor better than the market can.
I’m proposing that, thought they may be “innocent”, “blameless”, as you say, that does not mean they deserve to be citizens, that’s all.
That is not “useless cruelty”. That is rational policy.
Burthright citizenship delenda est.
I’m talking about your emphatic statement that they “deserve derogation“:
I’m not really a fan of many indigestible clumps of hostile citizens at the moment.
Yes.
It always amuses me how conservatives can spill gallons of ink explaining how the government is terrible at managing X or Y, but when an area they care about is behaving in a way they don’t like suddenly the government is fully capable of managing things.
But you specifically were talking about embracing the ethnic heritage of our founder which is why I ask how do you square that heritage with that of the numerous citizens who do not share it.
Your characterization of Brithright citizenship as “nothing more than a lure” is preposterous. It is the proper form of citizenship for a multi ethnic state as it asserts the government jurisdiction over all within its territory with the exception of foreign officials. Birthright citizenship force integration and assimilation. Not just on the recipient, but also crucially on the rest of the population by quickly and clearly removing any distinction between populations. Whether your ancestors go back 200 years or just 20 if your first breath is of American air you are an American, and no one can say otherwise. It is powerful symbol of American cultures openness to assimilation. People in American often forget because we do it so naturally, but assimilation is a two way street. It not only requires a group to wish to integrate but also for the preexisting groups to allow the integration. You are seeking to put up barriers to the natural flow of American assimilation with your proposal. Far from helping to solve our problems with illegal immigrants you will be creating an intractable problem.
What would you propose?
Three cheers!
First, please quantify the problem.
We already have a non-citizen caste, and inanities like birthplace citizenship encourage them to come.
If rationalizing our citizenship laws (eliminating birthplace citizenship) causes such hardships to this projected caste of untouchables born on our soil, perhaps their parents will be smart enough to stay home. Or the kids might, ya know, go back home if they want the blessings of national citizenship. That should be a them problem, not an us problem.
Who is proposing it be applied retroactively?
I agree. And why would such a child deserve citizenship in the place he happened to be born, rather than where his parents have their citizenship? The latter option is rational. The former never made sense, Chesterton’s fence notwithstanding.
I would like to hear your argument about which citizenship the child “deserves” if she is going to grow up here. I have made my views clear earlier in the thread, and I didn’t use the language of “deserve”, I wrote about what’s good for our country.
Hmm, from Wikipedia’s article on Birth tourism:
“The Center for Immigration Studies, estimates that there are approximately 40,000 annual births to parents in the United States as birth tourists.[6][7] However, total births to temporary immigrants in the United States (e.g., tourists, students, guest workers) could be as high as 200,000.[8] “
(note: the 200,000 estimate was for 2009)
From Pew Research Center:
“About 275,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in 2014, or about 7% of the 4 million births in the U.S. that year, according to Pew Research Center estimates based on government data.”
I can’t read minds or see a theoretical future so I don’t know how many mothers arrive just to give birth or if illegal immigration would decrease if we stopped birthright citizenship. I do know that any country can revise immigration policy if it so chooses. I would be fine if we actually halted influx for a time and actually let the melting pot, you know, melt.
You want to eat people? This is not Soylent Green!
Tracinski:
This would be comically stupid, were it not so insidious. The Left does not need extra ammo for their smears. But here’s Tracinski handing them a magazine.
Black slaves were brought to these shores before even the Pilgrims arrived. To now claim that changing our immigration laws is a slight to the descendants of black slaves is an utterly mendacious form of race-baiting.
Great, now I won’t even sleep tonight…
I think we should attempt to understand the consequences of a proposed policy before we enact the change.
I agree. I’m talking about prudence, not legality of the policy.
I don’t agree, but I acknowledge that as a valid position. However, I think it’s not all that relevant to the question at hand. We are talking about children of illegal immigrants, right?
He, to use the correct pronoun, should have whatever citizenship his parents bequeath to him. If they are not U.S. citizens, there’s no compelling reason why he should be.
Perhaps the accident of birthplace seems like a reasonable way of assigning citizenship to some people. Maybe they can explain why.
I think we have the answer already which is Birthright citizenship. The problem of illegal immigrants while casually talked about as one thing is actually numerous separate problems comprised of different populations of people each facing different circumstances. For instance the illegal migration of Mexican has basically stopped, now many crossing our southern border are Central Americans. Thus the initial population of illegal Mexican immigrants will in time evaporate away regardless of what our government does. The generations they produce will be full American citizens, and thus not illegal. Problem solved! More importantly while our birthright citizenship does offer incentive for people to come here and stay here, it is not the only incentive they have for making this journey. It probably doesn’t even rank in the top 5. All of the economic, security, and liberty concerns that have driven people to America still will exist even if we have no birthright citizenship. But what our Birthright Citizenship offers is a stake in the future for these people and their children. That stake in the future is a pathway for integration and assimilation. Thus while the removal of Birthright Citizenship may marginally impact the calculus of a Central American in undertaking the dangerous journey to America its absence when they do make it here will greatly hinder their and our ability to integrate. How inhospitable can we make our nation to these people to deter them utterly from trying? Would we want to live in such a place ourselves?
The restrictionist think they will stop the flow of people through laws, but we can not stop the flow of contraband materials through laws and we think we can stop sentient beings? Preposterous. We can remove the problem of documentation by greatly expanding our legal immigration which will offer us better ability to monitor who is here. As noncriminal immigrant will prefer to have their papers in order if they are easy and likely to be obtained. Criminals on the other hand will still probably be crossing illegally in pursuit of their profession. Either way border patrol and ice will then only really have MS13 to focus on.
Or, we can accept that we will have some level of illegal immigrantion so long as the prospect of undocumented life in America is still preferable to life in their place of origin. If then our worry is that we have now too many immigrants (a view I do not share) then restricting legal immigration will slow but not eliminate the flow of immigrants, and assimilation will continue on at the same rate it has been and we will see the number of foreign born Americans drop as it did in the past. Without birthright citizenship this will not happen though and we will have a growing population of second class noncitizens.
Not only illegal immigrants, no.
You should have seen at least three comments in this thread arguing for that position, from Jon Yoo, from Valiuth, and from me.
Why do you get to decide the sex of my hypothetical baby?
Why would we want to deny citizenship to the children of legal immigrants?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonplus
Your friendly, neighborhood grammar nanny.
Part of what lets things melt is the Birthright Citizenship. That is why it is important.
Not every (legal) foreign national giving birth here is an immigrant, or at least not a long-term one. A woman could be here on a student visa, or as a tourist, and give birth. (Though I suppose the latter is unlikely.) Or a girl could be visiting relatives, or she might have intended to stay as a permanent resident, but she returns permanently to her native land for some reason (while the child is still very young).
I’m all for granting citizenship to the children of permanent resident immigrants, who stay until their U.S.-born children reach majority. I just don’t see how it is reasonable for birth-place to grant automatic citizenship.