Nov
4
The Battle to End Birthright Citizenship
“According to the Pew Research Center, in 2008, 350,000 pregnant woman jumped America’s borders or rode in on a visa to birth their ‘anchor baby’ on U.S. soil. That practice continues for the past 30 years by hundreds of thousands and now millions of pregnant women who birth their ‘jack pot’ child in the loving arms of American taxpayers. (www.PewResearchCenter.org , Birthright Citizenship) Last year, 2017, according to the report, 270,000 women birthed their anchor baby on U.S. soil.” — Frosty Wooldridge, “We Must Stop the Anchor Baby Invasion of America”
In the above-quoted piece at “Godfather Politics”, Wooldridge goes on to explain the economic impact of “birthright citizenship” on U.S. taxpayers — into the trillions of dollars — along with other ramifications of this illogical policy. (Here are some more numbers.) It is a practice that simply needs to end, as soon as possible.
So, why do we have it in the first place?
At the heart of the issue is the opening section of the 14th Amendment, which 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.”
In particular, the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is used to declare the citizenship of any baby born on U.S. soil (or, presumably, within national airspace or territorial waters), regardless of circumstance or parentage. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including this key phrase.
The problem, which various legal scholars and students of history have explained, is that the State Department and others have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment. Ben Shapiro writes:
“As Ilya Shapiro of CATO Institute points out, that phrase was originally written to exclude the children of Native American tribes from American citizenship – since those children were subject to the jurisdiction of Native American governance – as well as the children of foreign diplomats and soldiers from abroad fighting on American land. The amendment was specifically written in order to guarantee the citizenship of freed slaves and their children, in order to abrogate the Supreme Court’s despicable Dred Scott ruling. Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI)[, member of the Committee that drafted the amendment and who fought for inclusion of the phrase in question,] explained the purpose of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision:
‘This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.'”
Also, as The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky wrote a few years ago,
“Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has ‘subjected’ himself ‘to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political ‘jurisdiction’ of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.”
It’s the difference between “partial, territorial jurisdiction” (based on one’s presence within a sovereign territory) and “complete political jurisdiction” (requiring allegiance to said sovereign).
But, the State Department isn’t the only body at fault for allowing “birthright citizenship” to continue in the U.S. As Wooldridge observes,
“Georgia House of Representatives member Nathan Deal, 15 years ago, tried to pass a bill to stop the anchor baby practice. It still sits in committee. Another current member of the House, Steve King (R-IA), introduced a bill five years ago to stop the anchor baby practices. It sits in committee, untouched. For some reason, all 535 Congressional Critters failed you, the American taxpayer, for the past 30 years. Who allows it, what reason, and why does this financial suicide continue?”
A few days ago, President Trump indicated that he planned to rectify the situation via Executive Order.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t. You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
Immediately, the critics (including friends of mine on social media) began accusing Trump of attempting an unconstitutional end-run around Congress. (Of course, most of them assume the policy is legit, too.) I feared they might be right and thought, “Oh, crud, here we go….” But, as I read more about the whole situation, I realized that not only was the policy of questionable legality (as discussed above) but the proper means of eliminating it was simplified accordingly. Sorta…
According to von Spakovsky, since the rationale for current “birthright citizenship” practice is based on erroneous interpretation of the law to begin with,
“…the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement.”
But, as Shapiro opines (and I think he’s probably right),
“Presumably, Trump knows that an executive order will immediately be challenged in court, and then taken to the Supreme Court. That’s his goal. So no, an executive order won’t immediately take effect, and even an act of Congress would be litigated. But the issue itself isn’t quite as clear-cut as advocates for birthright citizenship maintain.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that he plans to “introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from [the] President.” Getting such a bill to pass through Congress would be much more difficult, especially since it presumes the policy is indeed entailed in the 14th Amendment, thereby requiring another amendment to neutralize that particular application. But, I’m glad someone on the Hill is willing to champion the effort.
One (or two?) steps at a time…
