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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 313 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Your argument style can be so grating sometimes. The truth is not a defense of a logical fallacy, full stop. Please internalize that.

     

    Ad homimen only a logical fallacy when the point being raised is irrelevant to the discussion. Your views on the nature of nationality and citizenship are not irrelevant.

    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.

    • #211
  2. Eric Cook, aka St. Salieri Inactive
    Eric Cook, aka St. Salieri
    @EricCook

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Who here is pretending that there aren’t costs? Stop it with the strawmen. The question is are the benefits greater than the costs?

    ….

    I don’t think you can even begin to estimate the costs of upending a century of law, tradition and values.

    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…

    • #212
  3. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #213
  4. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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. 

    • #214
  5. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Your argument style can be so grating sometimes. The truth is not a defense of a logical fallacy, full stop. Please internalize that.

    I’m not even sure I’ve advocated birthright citizenship on this thread. I’m advocating for letting people live here, irrespective of their status. If birthright citizenship lets more people do that, then fine. But the citizenship is much less valuable than permanent residency.

    I didn’t ad hom you because I didn’t insult you. Are you or are you not an anarchist, Mike? I think it’s important to know where people sit before they tell me where they stand, because the correlation between those positions is typically pretty close to “1.”

    You’re just making assertions without any backing. The traditions of nation-states which have endured for centuries are so unjust and evil in your Solomon-like wisdom? You, of all the people in the history of the world and lawmaking are the one we’ve been waiting for, apparently. Thank goodness.

    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.

    Mike H (View Comment):
    No. You can continue to take from people what has always been taken from them, or you could finally start to let them have what is rightfully there’s.

    There’s one of the assertions now. What is being taken from them which is rightfully their’s? Citizenship in our nation? Residency?

    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.

    They have neither of those things and they aren’t their right, legally, morally or historically.

    I take issue with slipping in that middle one.

    Their nations did not conquer ours and establish that border. Your assertion is rebuffed.

    Well, if you believe might literally (rather than practically) makes right, there’s little I can do about that.

    If the Israelis can (morally) build a barrier to keep out the Palestinians, we too can build a wall and have immigration laws which are far more lax and still be well within defensible moral grounds.

    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.

    • #215
  6. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Immigration: legal and illegal will continue to happen as long as America is a better place to live and succeed that elsewhere. Since America is the greatest nation on earth I doubt that ending birthright citizenship will have anything other than a marginal impact on immigration. The costs, however, could be immense in terms of a destruction of a shared national identity in favor of ghettoized identitarian groups with competing interests.

    How?

    Your scenario seems to imply that ending birthright citizenship for non-residents will somehow devalue the citizenship that people already have, and which no one in this thread has advocated taking away. American citizenship is a valuable commodity; it should mean something. In any other situation we would all agree that valuable commodities should not be handed out freely to anyone who happens to show up. There is no scenario where the children of citizens will be denied citizenship, and the overwhelming majority appear to be in favor of expanding that list to include the children of legal permanent residents, so I can’t see any way in which your nightmare scenario occurs. If anything making American citizenship meaningful could strengthen our national identity.

    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.

    • #216
  7. AltarGirl Inactive
    AltarGirl
    @CM

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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?

    • #217
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Eric Cook, aka St. Salieri (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Who here is pretending that there aren’t costs? Stop it with the strawmen. The question is are the benefits greater than the costs?

    ….

    I don’t think you can even begin to estimate the costs of upending a century of law, tradition and values.

    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…

    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. 

    • #218
  9. Umbra of Nex Inactive
    Umbra of Nex
    @UmbraFractus

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    I agreed. 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 jeaporadize that value system and place us on a path to a more identitarian based culture. 

    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.

    • #219
  10. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):
    No, I treat them with basic human decency. Meaning I want them to make whatever decisions they deem best based on their own preferences, including economic considerations. Just because I don’t disregard economic incentives as valid reasons to act, doesn’t mean I’m only taking those incentives into account. But there’s this strange thing about most people. We usually ascribe it to leftists and socialist, but it really seems to be a deep human bias across the political spectrum. That is, that there’s something inherently unethical or just plain “icky” about the largest contribution to a decision being an economic one. Apparently, the only authentic choices we make are ones we make exclusively for “holistic” reasons, if there happens to be an economic benefit, then great! But the more economics comes into play the more “impure” the choice becomes. Disregarding people’s economic incentives as morally irrelevant is more dehumanizing than the erroneous claim that I am talking about people as if they are only “economic units.”

    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.

    • #220
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    AltarGirl (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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. 

    • #221
  12. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #222
  13. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Immigration: legal and illegal will continue to happen as long as America is a better place to live and succeed that elsewhere. Since America is the greatest nation on earth I doubt that ending birthright citizenship will have anything other than a marginal impact on immigration. The costs, however, could be immense in terms of a destruction of a shared national identity in favor of ghettoized identitarian groups with competing interests.

    How?

    Your scenario seems to imply that ending birthright citizenship for non-residents will somehow devalue the citizenship that people already have, and which no one in this thread has advocated taking away. American citizenship is a valuable commodity; it should mean something. In any other situation we would all agree that valuable commodities should not be handed out freely to anyone who happens to show up. There is no scenario where the children of citizens will be denied citizenship, and the overwhelming majority appear to be in favor of expanding that list to include the children of legal permanent residents, so I can’t see any way in which your nightmare scenario occurs. If anything making American citizenship meaningful could strengthen our national identity.

    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.

    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?

    • #223
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bob W (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Immigration: legal and illegal will continue to happen as long as America is a better place to live and succeed that elsewhere. Since America is the greatest nation on earth I doubt that ending birthright citizenship will have anything other than a marginal impact on immigration. The costs, however, could be immense in terms of a destruction of a shared national identity in favor of ghettoized identitarian groups with competing interests.

    How?

    Your scenario seems to imply that ending birthright citizenship for non-residents will somehow devalue the citizenship that people already have, and which no one in this thread has advocated taking away. American citizenship is a valuable commodity; it should mean something. In any other situation we would all agree that valuable commodities should not be handed out freely to anyone who happens to show up. There is no scenario where the children of citizens will be denied citizenship, and the overwhelming majority appear to be in favor of expanding that list to include the children of legal permanent residents, so I can’t see any way in which your nightmare scenario occurs. If anything making American citizenship meaningful could strengthen our national identity.

    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.

    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. 

    • #224
  15. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    AltarGirl (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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?

    I never argued that we’re required to give anyone citizenship, just to make that clear once again.

    • #225
  16. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    Mike H (View Comment):
    Well, if you believe might literally (rather than practically) makes right, there’s little I can do about that.

    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.

    • #226
  17. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):
    I never argued that we’re required to give anyone citizenship, just to make that clear once again.

    This is why I find your objection to be mendacious.

    • #227
  18. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I am for protecting it. Birthright Citizenship is a century-old law and tradition that is very American. 

    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.

    • #228
  19. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Bob W (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Immigration: legal and illegal will continue to happen as long as America is a better place to live and succeed that elsewhere. Since America is the greatest nation on earth I doubt that ending birthright citizenship will have anything other than a marginal impact on immigration. The costs, however, could be immense in terms of a destruction of a shared national identity in favor of ghettoized identitarian groups with competing interests.

    How?

    Your scenario seems to imply that ending birthright citizenship for non-residents will somehow devalue the citizenship that people already have, and which no one in this thread has advocated taking away. American citizenship is a valuable commodity; it should mean something. In any other situation we would all agree that valuable commodities should not be handed out freely to anyone who happens to show up. There is no scenario where the children of citizens will be denied citizenship, and the overwhelming majority appear to be in favor of expanding that list to include the children of legal permanent residents, so I can’t see any way in which your nightmare scenario occurs. If anything making American citizenship meaningful could strengthen our national identity.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    • #229
  20. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):
    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 how 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.

    • #230
  21. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    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.

    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. 

     

     

    • #231
  22. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Mike H (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #232
  23. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Birthright citizenship is an almost exclusively American thing, by which I mean of the Americas. Most countries use jus sanguinis: citizenship derives from parents. Only the dark blue countries in this map have unconditional birthright citizenship; light blue countries have a restricted version. The very lightest blue (e.g., India) have abolished it.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

    In short,

    The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.

    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.

    • #233
  24. TRibbey Inactive
    TRibbey
    @TRibbey

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #234
  25. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    TRibbey (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Far from helping to solve our problems with illegal immigrants you will be creating an intractable problem.

    What would you propose?

    Open borders, of course. Nothing must impede the “natural flow”….

    I did not.  “natural flow” is @valiuth‘s phrase. 

    • #235
  26. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Part of what lets things melt is the Birthright Citizenship. That is why it is important.

    How, precisely, is a Russian or Chinese woman who comes to this nation pregnant for the sole purpose of having a baby so that it can gain US citizenship “melting into our nation”?

    It’s a stupid policy from that perspective and one that needs to be stopped.

    It’s about the kid not the parents.

    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. 

    • #236
  27. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Moderator Note:

    Please lay off the personal attacks.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Birthright citizenship has got to go. It makes no sense.

    …and never has.

    How people can argue for birthright citizenship is beyond my intellectual capabilities to comprehend.

    It sets us apart from the ethnostates of Europe that spent most of their history at war with one another or oppressing and killing those within their borders not sufficiently pure. Something like the holocaust or A Hand Maidens Tale could never happen here because our shared national identity trumps any ethnic or religious identity our citizens lay claim to.

    We are all Americans first and birthright citizenship is a key component of why that value system exists. Why the right would want to play into the hands of the identitarian left by undermining that cornerstone of American life is beyond my intellectual capacity to comprehend.

    [Redacted.] 

    • #237
  28. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    There’s no doubt that America is and remains the greatest nation on Earth. But it was only made that way because of what amounts to a phenomenon of self-selection of exceptional minds and people. It’s continuation as the greatest implies that we ought to attempt to locate and invite the best and most exceptional… not just people who can somehow find their way in.

    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.

    • #238
  29. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    There’s no doubt that America is and remains the greatest nation on Earth. But it was only made that way because of what amounts to a phenomenon of self-selection of exceptional minds and people. It’s continuation as the greatest implies that we ought to attempt to locate and invite the best and most exceptional… not just people who can somehow find their way in.

    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.

    • #239
  30. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #240
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.