Home » On birthright citizenship: the truth, the whole truth, and the “Trump truth”

Comments

On birthright citizenship: the truth, the whole truth, and the “Trump truth” — 32 Comments

  1. Actually, what Pres. Trump said is true.

    Quote: We’re the only country in the world where a foreigner comes in, has a baby, and it becomes a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES. Unquote, paraphrased.

    Foreigners who go into OTHER countries and have a baby, and if that baby becomes a citizen, h/she becomes a citizen of THAT COUNTRY, not the US.
    Personally I think the law needs to be changed, as does Trump, and whether an EO can do it he doesn’t care, he just wants to make it an issue by bringing it up.

  2. I love the way everyone is screaming about how unconstitutional it is to get rid of birthright citizenship. An executive order to do this probably isn’t a legit way, it seems to me Congress should handle this, which I’m glad Lindsay Graham is doing (dude’s on a roll). But it won’t get over the 60-vote hump.

    Nonetheless, I think Trump did a good thing by sparking a long overdue conversation. I think the rest of the GOP in Congress are starting to wake up to the fact that we don’t have to maintain the status quo any more, which is pretty much what they’ve been doing when they gain power, making only mild and incremental changes. Now if they could only get serious about reining in spending.

  3. If Trump were to issue an EO specifying no citizenship or passports for U.S. born children of diplomats or heads of state, then he would be enforcing black letter constitutional law. And the left would still flip out, which would be instructive for the country.

    How did that get switched anyway? Under which president?
    _____

    “… even a constitutional amendment banning birthright citizenship would be a violation of basic “human rights” as defined by international law.”

    I love this point. This is the Justice Stevens wing of SCOTUS jurisprudence. Their decisions must strive towards compliance with international law, according to him. Sheesh!
    _____

    Again, what happened to Lindsey Graham? He was never like this before.

  4. ConceptJunkie,

    I hate to say it, but even with the current makeup of the House, they won’t break the 50% threshold. Paul Ryan doesn’t want to change the nature of birthright citizenship even a little bit. I’d like to think he is a one-off aberration, but he isn’t.

    The one word explanation is, GOPe. There are lots of wealthy Wall-Streeters in there, who provide a large chunk of funding to the GOP, and many or most of them are completely comfortable with corporatism. That is, the marriage of big gov. and big business, even if it means taxing the bejesus out of the fly-over country while flooding it with immigrants.

    Real grass roots activism died with the Tea Party. The GOPe could have either embraced the Tea Party or kill it, and they chose the latter. They were fully prepared for the Hillary Clinton presidency …, then Donald Trump happened.

    Trump and an increasing groundswell of conservative support, could move the needle, but it has to be substantially big and aggressive. If that happens, then you know it will lead to the left (& George Will types) calling people like Neo (& me) a “Hitler enabler,” with all the absurdity that would entail.

  5. Meanwhile, several liberal people I know are frantically applying for dual citizenship to Ireland and Canada. They plan to bug out there when America collapses because they believe America is Hitler.

    So I say, “maybe I should apply for Israeli citizenship, after all my mom was Israeli,” and they look at me like I’m crazy for wanting to bug out to Israel to escape Hitler. Lol.

    So many opportunities for laughing at absurdity, if one just looks.

  6. The illegal alien invaders are headed STRAIGHT for out welfare roles.

    PERIOD.

    An Exodus from persecution — is not the situation — at all.

  7. Who cares what the rest of the world does about birthright citizenship? Let’s focus on what’s best for the United States.

  8. Based on what Paul Ryan said, I don’t think Graham’s bill would even get a hearing in the House. I disagree with Ryan. If Congress could add persons to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as it did in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act, I fail to see a reason why it cannot remove certain people from such jurisdiction.

    Here is the entire text of the Indian Citizenship Act:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

    (Wouldn’t it be great if they would write statutes like this today, instead of the 2,000-page loophole-strewn, lobbyist-written, earmark-studded monsters we get?)

    How about this:

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born within the territorial limits of the United States of a parent or parents in the United States illegally or on a tourist visa, not be, and they are hereby, declared not to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the denial of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the application of all federal and state criminal and civil laws, other than those concerning citizenship, to such persons or their parents.”

  9. democrats are now calling every registered hispanic in the country telling them that they will lose their citizenship if they don’t go out and vote.

  10. Richard, when I suggest Mexico as an alternative they splutter and become inarticulate. Which is funny too, but depressingly like fish in a barrel.

  11. At present, I can prove my citizenship by presenting my birth certificate. Presumably, something more would be required if the US did away with birthright citizenship.

    Does anybody know how that works in those other countries without birthright citizenship? Does some government agency make a determination?

    No agenda here, just curious.

  12. Curious:

    As I wrote in the post, the proposal is not to “do away with birthright citizenship.” The proposal is to do away with it in certain situations.

    But you are correct that a birth certificate saying a person was born in the US would therefore not be enough. I don’t know how other countries handle it, but I’m sure there’s a way.

  13. An unambiguous interpretation would be that the child inherits the legal status of her mother and father a la “the People” and “our Posterity”.

  14. Why should we give a damn about what other countries do about immigration or how a person legally becomes a citizen? I am totally with JFM on this issue. The concept of anchor babies needs to end.

  15. Neo,

    You are right – other countries have to have ways to determine who is and who is not a citizen. I am just curious to know what some of those ways might be. In this country I suspect that it would have to involve an additional layer of bureaucracy.

    What could go wrong?

    Again, just curious.

  16. Neo, don’t some of the “birthright” countries require at least one parent to be a legal resident? I did read that somewhere, not sure where. And of course could be completely wrong.

  17. parker; JFM:

    Well, in this case, what other countries do mostly is identical or similar to what Trump wants to do, although the press seems to want you to think otherwise.

  18. LYNN HARGROVE:

    No, I don’t think that’s correct. What you’re describing is a modified form of birthright citizenship.

  19. First, I believe Trump’s meaning was to say no other [developed] country does it like America, which is almost true because none do in Europe but Canada, alone, is developed and does it.
    Still, anybody who calls Trump a liar is … not accurate … not true … is themselves a liar. Because a baby born in Canada is not a US citizen — which is actually what Trump said.

    Critics can’t change what somebody actually says to what they think is meant, and then call them liars about it — without themselves being liars.

    Trump is right to end it. He should do the Exec Order, and let the Dem dominated courts make some injunction about it and have it go up towards the SCOTUS. In the meantime, Graham should introduce a law. Let the Dems go on record supporting it — and in the discussion note how it’s only Canada, protected by the US, which has it (other than US).

  20. I hear so many people saying “subject to the jurisdiction.” I am an American living in Germany, and I am certainly subject to its jurisdiction WRT speed limits and other minor things of everyday life. In the bigger things, I am subject to America’s jurisdiction. I get info from the US Consulate about voting and avoiding dangerous situations. I have a US passport. I think the children with parents of different nationalities should have to choose one when they reach adulthood, no matter which country they were born in. I am legally here and have a German ID card and drivers license, but I expect that if there was a serious international legal problem for me, the Germans would expect my own government to step in.

    Children of people on the road to US citizenship and green card holders should be eligible for US citizenship if they have lived for a specified time in the US. Children of illegals should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. Birth tourism should not be allowed. When all the laws about birthright citizenship were passed, it was not possible to fly to another country in less than a day and stay on a tourist visa.Sometimes laws do need to change to reflect drastically different situations. You didn’t need a drivers license to take a Conestoga wagon across the country.

  21. ConceptJunkie on November 1, 2018 at 1:55 pm at 1:55 pm said:

    Nonetheless, I think Trump did a good thing by sparking a long overdue conversation. I think the rest of the GOP in Congress are starting to wake up to the fact that we don’t have to maintain the status quo any more,
    * * *
    That’s one way to “fundamentally transform” America that I could support.
    Stare decisis is for judicial decisions (and not always even so).
    The essential point of having a legislature (popularly elected especially) is precisely to make changes to the status quo without having to go through a revolution to do it.

  22. expat on November 1, 2018 at 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm said:
    …Children of illegals should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. Birth tourism should not be allowed. When all the laws about birthright citizenship were passed, it was not possible to fly to another country in less than a day and stay on a tourist visa.Sometimes laws do need to change to reflect drastically different situations. You didn’t need a drivers license to take a Conestoga wagon across the country.
    * * *
    See “changing the status quo” above.
    The open borders groups also try to conflate the immigration patterns of the 18th and early 19th century with today, especially claiming that “legal restrictions” are something new. However, with many of the early colonies, the immigrants had to have some kind of permission from the British government or one of its authorized corporations to enter and/or reside in an established community, and they locked up the “property rights” pretty tightly before the Revolution.
    After that, I don’t really know what the legal situation was; but restrictions were certainly in place in the early 20th century. See the article below. Note that it mentions Sen. Kennedy’s reassuring promises about the effects of the 1965 immigration act, but not that he lied through his teeth.

    This paragraph intrigued me, and pretty much tells you why our situation now is so fraught.

    “The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, led by former Rep. Barbara Jordan, ran from 1990 to 1997. The Commission covered many facets of immigration policy, but started from the perception that the “credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave”.[5] From there, in a series of four reports, the commission looked at all aspects of immigration policy.[6] In the first, it found that enforcement was lax and needed improvement on the border and internally. For internal enforcement, it recommended that an automated employment verification system be created to enable employers to distinguish between legal and illegal workers. The second report discussed legal immigration issues and suggested that immediate family members and skilled workers receive priority. The third report covered refugee and asylum issues. Finally, the fourth report reiterated the major points of the previous reports and the need for a new immigration policy. Few of these suggestions were implemented.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States

  23. neo on November 1, 2018 at 6:15 pm at 6:15 pm said:
    Curious:

    As I wrote in the post, the proposal is not to “do away with birthright citizenship.” The proposal is to do away with it in certain situations.

    But you are correct that a birth certificate saying a person was born in the US would therefore not be enough. I don’t know how other countries handle it, but I’m sure there’s a way.
    * * *
    Other countries are much smaller and have a history of requiring their residents to carry and produce documentation about their status. It’s no accident that the Left started calling illegal immigrants “undocumented” —
    However, if birth certificates had to be expanded to include the citizenship status of the parents, we could be in for a real can of worms: we can’t even agree on how to list the children’s or the putative parents’ sex on the forms now!

  24. Richard on November 1, 2018 at 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm said:
    Esther, why don’t these liberals apply for citizenship in Cuba or Venezuela……..?
    * * *
    Same reason Barbra Streisand isn’t moving there if the GOP keeps the House this month.

    Midterm elections 2018: How to move to Canada? Barbra Streisand …
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/…move-canada-barbra-streisand/1838909002/
    9 hours ago – Barbra Streisand moving to Canada over midterms? … Barbra Streisand told the New York Times she may move to Canada if Republicans keep their grip on the House. But Americans rarely do after elections.
    * * *
    Among the many promises Dems never keep….

  25. Curious,
    Two of my children were born in Germany and one in Korea. They have German and Korean birth certificates but they aren’t German and Korean citizens. One of the first things I had to do was obtain pictures of the baby in the crib then go to the US Consulate and obtain a passport for it. The baby had to have a passport to enter the US. The children also have State Dept. birth certificates.
    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html

  26. Best article on this seems to be

    Birthright Citizenship and Its Allies
    By Pedro Gonzalez on American Greatness .

    Explains what “jurisdiction” means in this context, no other allegiance but to the U.S. Even American Indians were found to not be citizens under the 14th amendment because of their tribal allegiance which is to a sovereign nation. Congress quickly passed a law making them citizens. Other rulings such as diplomats children are not citizens exist. However there is no ruling on illegals. Therefore the matter needs to get before the Supreme Court where there is a good chance of a ruling that children of illegals are not citizens because they have an allegiance to the country of the parents.

    To get the matter before the court you need a vehicle, a case, and an executive order seems like an excellent choice for such a vehicle.

  27. In this instance, ‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ does NOT mean traffic laws, etc.- as liberals would like us to believe. Do foreign nationals register for the draft?

  28. The Wikipedia page for Jus Soli (e.g. Birthright Citizenship) reports that it does not apply in Canada to children where neither parent is a citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. Assuming this is correct, John Cassidy turns out to be about as accurate as President Trump

  29. “Fact Checking” is typically an exercise in missing the point of things. Context. Relevance. Who needs them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>