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
Chestertons Fence.
You know very well that I’m an acolyte of Sowell, and that I have a very firm grasp of the notion of tradeoffs.
In this case, I view the potential costs as being very low relative to the gains. In the first case, the nation stands to gain a great deal financially through the sale of citizenships which are currently being given away for nothing. The costs of this are almost entirely borne by people who are not Americans… who will simply not get a thing which they’re not entitled to anyways.
You can’t lose something which you never had.
That’s not true in my experience.
Definitely.
I think that our appropriately humane attitude towards children citizens has caused us to cater to the interests of their foreigner parents to a degree which has on balance harmed many Americans.
This gives many Americans the impression that the government is willing to bend over backwards for the interests of those foreigners, which is both accurate and shameful.
The reason why we have a government in the first place is to guarantee the rights of citizens. This policy has caused harm to us by calling that into question.
You keep saying that, but the problem is: which side of Chesterton’s fence does this policy stand on? In my opinion, granting Citizenship on the basis of connection to the nation rather than simple location of birth is a restoration of the original intent of the Founders, which was a nation based upon ideas… not just who could produce offspring here.
I don’t think you can even begin to estimate the costs of upending a century of law, tradition and values.
The effects our choosiness has on foreigners definitely indicates against it. I mean, you can totally disregard what happens to people who happened to be born outside the country, and this seems to be the last refuge to get out those natural human misanthropic tendencies, similarly to how fat people are basically the only people one can comfortably say horribly mean things about these days. But, horribly bad consequences to vast numbers of individuals are a direct effect of a country’s decision to be “choosy” on who to let into their country.
People respond to this by saying “everyone else is doing it” and “their home countries hold all moral responsibility for their situation.” Similarly to how the battering husband tells his wife “you’re making me do this to you.” But you can’t escape the fact that no matter the responsibility of other people and other countries, simply by not being as “choosy,” there would be vast improvements in countless people’s lives, and that means something.
Two thoughts:
@majestyk Take it from someone whose presence in this country can be taken away at any moment: there is no substitute for knowing you are permanently attached to a country. It creates an indentity and loyalty that supersedes most others. That has immense value both to the citizen and to society at large.
How will a kid born in the US but raised in Russia by Russian parents speaking only Russian and going to Russian schools who doesn’t even know he is an American citizen until his parents tell him on his 18th birthday be doing any “melting”?
The policy is the fence. You may not know all the consequences of removing it.
?
So what?
Are you advocating for us to invade North Korea because they have concentration camps there? I mean, maybe we should. It’s the only humane thing to do, after all. I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating that, so there are limits even to your altruism. I mean, how can we stand by and allow those people to be tortured and killed like that?
Maybe because the tradeoffs in terms of blood and treasure would be predictably very great in exchange for no guarantee of a good outcome. That isn’t an advocacy for doing nothing in the face of evil, it’s a recognition that at times there is no “good” outcome on the table.
Second verse, same as the first…
What is your limiting principle? Should we allow half of the world’s population to live here because it will “improve their lives”? What about the lives of Americans? Do their interests count in this calculus at all?
My answer is: yes. The government of the United States exists as an entity whose purpose ought to be protecting the interests of its citizens. That its citizens do good things for other people who aren’t citizens (sometimes through the government) is also laudable and an expression of our values – but there is an upper bound.
Then we should do it for each and every person born here.
To be fair, we’re adding to the fence, so your analogy is flawed.
Wasn’t there a crazy russian lady that wrote a really big book on this?
I thought you were a full citizen?
Further one of the policy goals of student visas is to encourage the best and brightest from the rest of the world to come here and hopefully stay thereby enriching America. Someone having a child here while on such a visa would only further induce them to stay. Seems like a feature not a bug.
The number of people doing this is tiny, I don’t see how it justifies overturning a century of law and tradition.
Chesterton’s fence says, once you understand why the fence was there in the first place, we can discuss whether it makes sense to remove it. From Wikipedia
Wikipedia says
Those of us arguing that birthright citizenship should be ended fully understand why it was included in the 14th Amendment. We acknowledge the purpose it served. Chesterton’s fence does not say, you have to understand every possible consequence of removing the fence. If that was the requirement, no law could ever be passed or repealed.
We have fully complied with the requirements of Chesterton’s Fence.
Naturalized Americans can have their citizenship taken away from them.
I am OK with extending consideration to some student visas, depending on major and employment prospects and so forth. But then I can think of a lot of ways where such an exception could go horribly wrong.
It seems like you are changing the subject. How is this kid doing any melting as you say he is in your experience?
You should repeat it again three times… that will summon the “possibility faerie” which will make it happen.
Again Jamie, I don’t disagree with you that some Americans suck. Because some Americans suck does not mean that we have to invite the whole world to have their children here and offer them permanent settlement rights.
That argument is a non sequitir.
The possibility that we will end birthright citizenship, which requires a constitutional amendment, is as much a fantasy.
What makes you think their children will be uneducated if they grow up here? Alternatively what makes you think the children of Nobel Laureates will pursue Science degrees themselves? What if they become English Majors or God forbid lawyers? Also it seems to me that the fact that these people keep coming here and getting jobs indicates that the Market still has a use for their labor. If it didn’t there would be no employment opportunities for them. Again you seek to anticipate what the market will need, I say let it sort itself out. Why prohibit it access to a willing labor force. The beauty of humans is that they are adaptable and educable. If you have the available labor force you can train it to do what needs to be done the incentives for this are built into the market. But you can’t train workers you don’t have and you don’t know what you will really need until you need it.
We actually don’t know the answer to that question, as the closest we’ve gotten to a judicial answer about that is the Kim Wong Ark decision.
Statutorily, Congress could simply say that citizenship can only be acquired via birth if one of your parents is a citizen or legal alien. There would of course be court challenges to that, but I’m confident the correct outcome would be produced by the system.
The UK certainly isn’t. Unless now we consider the Scots and Welsh English, and frankly I don’t think they consider themselves that.
Intelligence is highly heritable, and even if those children didn’t decide to enter a STEM field, it’s always better to have people with higher average IQ than not.
The beauty of laws is that they can be changed or added on to later. We already have innumerable work visa, guest worker and various other programs for people to come into our country and work.
The point of those programs however is for those people to be workers. So, I would argue we’re handling the needs of the market already.
Birthright Citizenship isn’t part of that equation, and granting it to the children of those guest workers seems foolish as well.
Correct. But the UK doesn’t have Birthright Citizenship.
There is plenty of precedent for nations not allowing that sort of situation within the Anglosphere. We should join them.