#105 Should We End Birthright Citizenship?
It’s been standard operating procedure our whole lives: If you’re born in the US, you get citizenship. Done. No questions.
Our elementary school teachers even taught us a song about it.
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island,
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters;
This land was made for you and me.
But with illegal immigration as a top issue this past election, people are more comfortable with challenging immigration law and peripheral arguments such as birthright citizenship.
Voters wanted a secure border, but was it Constitutional for President Trump to sign an Executive Order to end this long-standing tradition?
Argument: No! Immigrants built this Nation!
Main Points
Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution
Birthright citizenship prevents a permanent underclass
Birthright citizenship aligns with American values
Ending birthright citizenship would create tons of legal issues
Ending birthright citizenship would lead to serious economic and social consequences
Point #1: Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:
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.
The precedent was further enshrined into law in 1898 during the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision about a Chinese-American-born child who was denied re-entry into the US after a trip to China.
The court ruled in Wong Kim’s favor.
Point #2: Birthright Citizenship prevents a permanent underclass
If we do not grant citizenship to babies born in the US, we risk creating a permanent underclass, as those children would be stateless. While they may attempt to apply for citizenship in their parent’s country of origin, this process can often be challenging and lengthy.
This legal limbo would make it hard for kids to access healthcare, education, and employment.
After a generation, this would create massive social inequality, a lack of rights, and no place for these people to call home.
Point #3: Birthright Citizenship aligns with American values
As immigrants built America, it makes sense that we continue to welcome outsiders and create pathways to equality via birthright citizenship.
The Declaration of Independence states all men are created equal, and to deny the rights of those born in the US flies in the face of those values.
Point #4: Ending birthright citizenship would create tons of legal issues
Ending birthright citizenship would create a bureaucratic nightmare among government agencies as they would have to manage people on a caste system.
Not to mention inflating the black market with documentation fraud, which could drive immigrants into the criminal justice system, further widening the equality gap.
Point #5: Ending birthright citizenship would come with serious economic and social consequences
Not only did immigrants build this country, but they continue to improve upon its foundation.
Ending birthright citizenship would harm the economy, as fewer people would be able to participate in the workforce, marketplace, and tax pool.
Rebuttal: Yes! Birthright Citizenship is Unconstitutional!
Main Points
The Constitutional foundation for birthright citizenship is misinterpreted
Birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration
Birthright citizenship creates economic and social burdens
Birthright citizenship creates national security risks
Abolishing birthright citizenship would incentivize legal immigration, making a safer nation
Point #1: The Constitutional foundation for birthright citizens is misinterpreted
The primary aim of the 14th Amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which ruled that former slaves could not be citizens.
Let’s take a look at the 14th Amendment again:
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.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to “complete” jurisdiction, meaning not owing allegiance to any other authority.
Since illegal immigrants have not sworn allegiance to the United States via the legal immigration process, birthright citizenship does not apply to their offspring.
To quote the Attorney General in the 1872 Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases:
The word jurisdiction must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. ... Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Attorney General George Henry Williams
Point #2: Birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration
To allow anyone access to full US citizenship for simply being born in the US, even if the mother is here illegally, is a hell of an incentive to get pregnant in the US or just happen to arrive right before giving birth.
Since US citizens can sponsor work visas and green cards for non-citizens, these “anchor babies” can begin “chain migrating,” where they assist family members in getting citizenship in the future.
Point #3: Birthright citizenship creates economic and social burdens
Not only do the children of illegal immigrants get US citizenship, but they also get the full buffet of social services, including healthcare and general welfare benefits.
Courtesy of the American taxpayer.
After illegal immigrants plant anchor babies in the country, illegal family members compete for jobs with American citizens.
Point #4: Birthright citizenship creates national security risks
What national security risks do we present by allowing anyone from anywhere to create their own US citizen?
If people from adversarial nations can simply send an 8-month pregnant Russian or Chinese woman to New York for a couple of months and move them back home, they can train that person to be a spy and send them back years later.
Point #5: Abolishing birthright citizenship would incentivize legal immigration, making a safer nation
Without birthright citizenship, foreigners are less likely to exploit legal loopholes. This would encourage people to seek legal means, which would, in turn, filter out questionable people who could threaten our safety.
This Land Is OUR Land
I had an upsetting moment when I researched the lyrics to This Land Is Your Land.
I found the tune was written by Woody Guthrie, a communist sympathizer, in 1944 to protest the song God Bless America by Irving Berlin, later popularized on the radio by Kate Smith and the 1943 musical film This Is The Army.
Guthrie said he was tired of hearing the song on the radio. He was tired of hearing a morale-boosting, patriotic song?
IT WAS 1944! Insufferable.
According to Wikipedia, “he sarcastically called his song God Blessed America for Me before renaming it This Land Is Your Land.
One might assume I shouldn’t be surprised.
But it was just a kid's song, as far as I knew. I never thought anything of it. Only it wasn’t a kids’ song. It was a dirty communist ballad.
This is just another example of how the American public school system turned up the frog water to another degree. Soon, this tactic was followed by ceasing to state the Pledge of Allegiance before class.
All to teach students not to celebrate or respect their country as a nation but to treat it as a global free-for-all.
Like much of the Constitution, leftists bend its words to suit their needs. I doubt the authors would have foreseen hordes of people spilling into the country incentivized to give birth on US soil for a free lunch.
While Canada, Mexico, and other nations practice various forms of birthright citizenship, or “Jus Soli,” nobody gets taken advantage of the way we do in the States.
Had we enjoyed lower unemployment, lower crime, and overall social progress throughout my life so far, I might be inclined to support birthright citizenship and perhaps looser immigration laws overall.
But we haven’t.
Both those taking advantage of our country and the politicians, celebrities, and activists pushing for illegal immigration have only proved these liberal policies have been gutting our Nation from the inside out.
I’m tired of the same warmed-over arguments for allowing our country to be a global catch-all. “Immigrants built our nation,” “Give me your tired and poor,” “Save the refugees from persecution,” blah blah blah. This land is not everyone’s land. This land is our land, and there’s nothing racist or insensitive about that position.
Vice President JD Vance summed it up best in a recent interview with Margaret Brennan:
Just because we were founded by immigrants doesn't mean that 240 years later that we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world. -Vice President JD Vance
Meme of the Week
Brand of the Week: Best Defense Foundation
Founded in 2018 by former NFL Linebacker Donnie Edwards, the Best Defense Foundation is a non-profit organization driven by volunteers who are passionate about supporting military veterans and their families.
Through its Battlefield Return program, in partnership with Delta Airlines, the organization has assisted over 100 veterans in returning to places like Normandy, Belgium, and Iwo Jima to honor those who did not return. These ventures often serve as effective therapy tactics for servicemembers.
You can support the cause by grabbing a t-shirt, hat, or hoody or donating directly here.
Americans of the Week: US Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Nathan “Nate” Bruckenthal, US Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Michael J. Pernaselli, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher E. Watts
On April 24, 2004, while serving as part of US Coast Guard Patrol Forces Southwest Asia aboard USS Firebolt, Petty Officer 3rd Class Nathan “Nate” Bruckenthal, a Damage Controlman, and two U. S. Navy sailors attempted to intercept an unknown vessel approaching the Iraqi Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal.
After catching up to the craft and attempting to board, it exploded. Nate succumbed to his wounds later during treatment. The accompanying US Navy Sailors Petty Officer 1st Class Michael J. Pernaselli, 27, from Monroe, New York, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher E. Watts, 28, from Knoxville, Tennessee, also passed away.
Nate was the first Coast Guard member killed in action since the Vietnam War.
For their actions, these servicemembers were posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.
Nate left behind his wife, Pattie, and his daughter, Harper, who was born seven months after his death.
Michael Pernaselli left behind an ex-wife and two daughters, Dominique and Nicole, who were 3 and 4 years old at the time.
Christopher Watts left behind his wife Kathy and son Jacob, who was 5 years old at the time.
Remember, Nate, Michael, and Christopher today.
Thank you for the timely and controversial article. I like how you present both sides. The part that speaks to me, besides the song This Land is my Land is, has it made our country any better all these years? NOT AT ALL!