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
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
No, it was being used as a distraction. Trying to make the conversation about something else. If anything, it’s something of an admission that you’re losing. If you can’t win the current conversation, try and change the topic.
Gay marriage anyone… just a few millennia worths of law, tradition, and values but that’s all, but hey, you like this tradition so it needs to stay in place.
If you build the fence in the wrong place, there is nothing wrong with taking it down, if the need for the fence is over (denying citizenship to former slaves), then take it down…
Anarchism is a philosophy which is flawed from the get-go, so conclusions drawn from its premises are likely to be just as flawed. As evidence I’ll wait here while you list the successful anarchist nations for me…
…
..
.
That didn’t take long.
How about you just take the arguments offered and deal with those instead of trying to invalidate arguments based on ad hominem.
All I’m doing is pointing out shared moral intuitions about how to treat those we interact with. A fact that the way government treat foreigners is completely contrary to common sense requires an explanation. Rationals like, “this is the way it’s always been done” or “the purpose of government is to do things that would otherwise be immoral,” at least to me, doesn’t begin to satisfy why it’s OK to treat like things (human beings) unlike.
The right to take a job from a willing employer and to rent from a willing landlord. And the right for employers and landlords to contract with other people.
I take issue with slipping in that middle one.
Well, if you believe might literally (rather than practically) makes right, there’s little I can do about that.
It’s questionable the level of morality of keeping out the Palestinians. There at least seems to be a large imminent physical threat there that makes the situation much less cut and dry than keeping out economic migrants.
I agree. American citizenship does mean something. The idea that those born here regardless of circumstances are first and foremost Americans means something. It creates a shared national identity that other countries, like those of Europe, based around shared ethno-identities lack. I think ending birthright citizenship would jeopardize that value system and place us on a path to a more identitarian based culture.
But Mike isn’t arguing from the realities of law and history. He’s arguing from the assumptions of his political philosophy. Nowhere in law or history is citizenship a right to anyone who wants it. It’s a privilege. Only adopting a certain philosophy does it become a human right. If I agreed with the underlying philosophy, I’d be better able to see if his arguments have merit, alas I don’t.
Tell me, how do you find policies argued from a Christian philosophy?
If you are under the impression that I was cavalier about changing the definition of marriage, or that I didn’t admit there would be unforeseen consequences then perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.
I can only make sense of this if the “identity” of which you speak is, “American,” in which case so what? Otherwise the proposed change will have no effect at all on those who already have or are on the path to legally acquiring citizenship, which makes the idea that it will pit those who are already citizens against each other implausible at best.
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding me: I don’t deny that there’s an important and potentially positive economic component. That is in my opinion the reason why we ought to have immigration in the first place.
The type and manner of immigration and the conditions under which it occurs are what concern me. Does it occur in a fashion whereby reasonable and customary laws are respected, or does it occur under the table? Don’t think that I’ve forgotten about the demand side of this equation either: the people who suborn illegal immigration ought to be fined out the yin yang.
I find them persuasive if the logic is sound. If the argument is merely “god ordained it so” then I don’t find it terribly persuasive. The source matters less to me than the argument presented.
You’ve got the causation exactly backwards. You’re assuming anarchism is an assumption and rationals are used to justify it. This is completely false. I am arguing from intuitions. Whether or not those intuitions lead some people to conclude anarchism doesn’t make those intuitions wrong. If anarchism is impossible it doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong to stop people from contracting with one another. If anarchism is wrong, then the state is simply much more restricted than it is now in what it’s allowed to do, since it follows from our intuitions that these things are wrong for anyone to do. You don’t (shouldn’t) need permission from the state in order to make contracts that are completely valid under normal circumstances.
Luckily, I’m dealing with an honest generous person who won’t mistake conclusions for reasons again.
When people travel abroad, including liberals, don’t they want to visit other cultures that are, well, unique cultures? Don’t they get pissed when they see a McDonald’s next to an 800 year old Hindu shrine? Why does every one else get to be “identitarian” except westerners? What’s wrong with having a unique culture and protecting it?
I am for protecting it. Birthright Citizenship is a century-old law and tradition that is very American.
I never argued that we’re required to give anyone citizenship, just to make that clear once again.
Good thing I’m not asserting that. My assertion is that the purpose of the government is to defend the liberties of its citizens. That includes the liberty of its citizens to not be pestered by foreigners. And there’s nothing wrong with that, inherently.
Another assertion which isn’t accurate. Your moral intuitions about these things aren’t dispositive. We have laws about these things which were created for reasons which seemed good to their creators, who were representatives of their constituencies through a democratic republican process and upheld by legal systems.
Illegal presence is a crime. A second violation is a felony. There are 320 million people in the United States. We don’t lack for options in terms of renters or employees. Merely because you can’t contract with somebody in Timbuktu for those things isn’t some restriction of your or their rights – it’s a reality that you are in different places with different sets of laws and values.
National boundaries have always been set by right of conquest, Mike. Sometimes, they’re set by purchase.
They all basically mean the same thing: that territory belongs to a nation, and that nation has a property-interest in it acquired either through blood or treasure.
That is the practical consequence of living in the real world – and I know that annoys you to contemplate. But it remains real nonetheless.
This is why I find your objection to be mendacious.
And to be clear, under my proposal, citizenship would continue to pass down from American people to their children. But not illegal aliens or tourists.
This is merely adding a segment to Chesterton’s fence.
No one said you’re not allowed to be pissed about things. Do the liberals tear down the McDonalds or simply express displeasure? There’s nothing wrong with having a unique culture, but your avenues for “protecting” it are not unlimited. If you’re neighbor decides to rent their house to someone you’d rather they didn’t, you unfortunately have little recourse. I’m not saying this is good or bad (it could go either way), but we have limits on our rights, especially limited rights on interfering with the rights of other people contracting with one another.
You’re completely right about that, which is why borders are important.
On this side of the border, your right to interfere with your neighbor renting their house is limited because we have a government premised on the idea of protecting people’s rights (nominally) of freedom of association and contract.
That’s a unique cultural trait of Americans which we ought to cherish and protect. We can do that by being selective about whom we invite to our nation.
That is the thing though ethno-nationalists are philosophically opposed to the very idea of the open society America was founded to be. While they complain constantly about the lack of integration of newly arrived immigrants (legal, illegal, etc.) they also actively work to promote laws and ideals antithetical to integration and assimilation. They don’t wan’t a melting pot, because they believe having all these strange people melting into our society will dilute their arbitrary ethnic identities.
Intuitions, not facts. Not history. Not traditions. Not Process Characteristics. Why are your intuitions not universal? Have you ever stopped to consider that because your intuitions are not shared by many other people that perhaps they require reevaluation?
I suppose it’s possible that you’re the only person who’s correct about these matters, but you’re stretching your personal intuitions far out of the scope in which they’re valid.
The assertion about the State doing things that are wrong for other people to do is easily dispelled so long as you look at it in the proper context. The State has a legal monopoly on the use of violence outside of extreme cases. Why? Because there are defectors from the general peace. Who would answer that defection otherwise? Private entities can’t for all the reasons we’ve discussed in the past.
While imperfect (surely) the state remains the lowest energy-state answer to the question “Who gets to act?” and the idea that we could ever do away with it seems absurd.
The Powers That be are doing everything possible to see to it that Australia liberalizes its immigration policies. Oppose the new insistence on “tolerance” and just as it happens here, you will be labeled racist and scum.
We already have a very identitarian based culture. Remember Otto Warmbier? When he died I was appalled at the number of Americans accusing him of “white privilege”. Fellow citizens bashing a countryman murdered by a brutal dictatorship, how much more identitarian could we be?
I don’t have any interest in promoting ethno-nationalism but I do think we have an integration issue. With as polarized as we all are perhaps slowing down immigration and promoting our values, culture, and institutions can turn up the heat on the pot.
I did not. “natural flow” is @valiuth‘s phrase.
So, um, even though the mom was a quite wealthy invader (air fare from Mkscow or Beijing ain’t cheap) we should still feel sorry for the kid? I don’t get it.
Moderator Note:
Please lay off the personal attacks.[Redacted.]
Except that people who somehow find their way in was exactly the previous standard for past migration. It is restrictionists who propose to build a better mouse trap.
Not a mousetrap: a wall. And E-Verify all around with biometric ID cards.
The government exists to guarantee fundamental human rights through the application of justice and justice must be administered universally to all people regardless of status. Citizenship really offers and should offer nothing to the administration of justice. A noncitizen doesn’t have less human rights than a citizen, though they may have fewer civil privilages. Frankly the liberty to not be bothered isn’t a thing the government exists to defend. Prove to me the immigrant restricts your right to life or liberty simply by being here anymore than a citizen does and I might agree with you about how not wrong you are.