So this raises the following dilemma. I assume you don’t support family separation. Should the parents be permitted to stay with their children, even though they entered illegally? If not, does the child go back with parents to their home country but still retain the rights of a US citizen? Either way, does that not incentivize “birth tourism” or whatever they call it? Having some border control laws to close that loophole for temporary visa holders makes sense to me. Seems more practical and simpler to implement than undoing birthright citizenship for children. Unclear how best to handle this for children of undocumented immigrants.
No. Birthright citizenship does not cause family separation. That is a separate consequence of immigration enforcement and parental choice. The gov does not mandate separation; in most cases, parents choose to stay with their children. Furthermore, if a parent truly cannot return home, it often confirms a legitimate asylum need. Without birghtright citizenship, that child could also be left stateless. Ultimately, a constitutional right provides an option rather than forcing a specific family outcome. The issue of birth tourism is statistically minor. If it were to become a significant concern, the solution lies in targeted legislation or visa policy instead of dismantling a foundational right. Illegal immigration and family separation are political and administrative issues, not constitutional flaws. These problems require congressional action and policy reform. Stripping away a constitutional right is an extreme and ineffective way to solve these specific political issues.
Targeted legislation and visa policy could help for those who enter the country the legal way. If a pregnant woman enters the country by evading border control and then gives birth to a child, the constitutional right of birthright citizenship creates the political problem. Without birthright citizenship, the mother and child have no right to remain here, and the child is the mother’s responsibility, and therefore the clear solution is that both mother and her infant should be returned to their home. Birthright citizenship creates the tension — the child remains the mother’s responsibility and should be in her care, but only one has the right to remain. So there is a clear tradeoff here. It doesn’t mean we have to end birthright citizenship (there are various difficulties with that), or that the constitution doesn’t protect it. But it does create an incentive for people to dangerously trek into the US and give birth to children with the reward that the children will have a constitutionally protected right to remain.
Correct, it's a political problem, and one that Congress and politicians have failed to address (illegal immigration). Take our current law: a pregnant woman who enters the country by evading border control can legally claim asylum. Illegally crossing the border does not disqualify someone from seeking asylum, and this was written into law, probably for good reasons. For example, a person fleeing violence cannot always wait to cross legally at a port of entry controlled by the very country that would kill them. Birthright citizenship did not create this problem, and in fact has existed since 1868, shortly after the Civil War. Illegal immigration is a modern problem, created by our more recent laws and broken immigration system. The answer has always been obvious, but has proven politically impossible to achieve: comprehensive immigration reform.
What would that reform look like and how does it mitigate the risk of mixed-status family units in terms of right to remain? I mean, trivially the “reform” could just be open borders and I suppose that solves it, but I assume you have something else in mind.
I talk about this more in the 'solving illegal immigration' thread, but in a nutshell: the solution is to legalize immigration in a way that is based on our actual needs, from low-end labor to high-end skills and research, serving both our economy and future growth. That then allows you to focus resources on securing the border. Illegal immigration cannot be eliminated entirely, but no one is after a perfect system, just a much better one than the broken system we have today. As an aside, the birthright citizenship argument being pushed by this admin is essentially an argument to make the US less attractive to immigrants. Whether you take away rights, degrade the economy, or simply make the country a place people no longer want to live, you accomplish the same thing. It is a radically misguided way to approach the problem of illegal immigration.
“the far left” … I think you’re mistaken in what the spectrum of opinion is on this issue, both historically and today. The passage you’re quoting: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States” The plain reading is that this refers to children of ambassadors specifically. Conservatives and liberals alike have understood this.
Why not make things more convenient for foreigners? Maybe we should consider every person in the world a US citizen without having to be troubled with a visit to a US territory. We should let them vote by internet from wherever they're living in the world and extend welfare benefits to them too. Anyone who disagrees is a Hitler-loving, Nazi, racist.
This is a common liberal tactic - to use the exception as the rule. The common sense argument is the children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens because it's the primary incentive for them to make the perilous journey here. It causes them to risk their own lives, their family's lives, and compromise the safety and job market for Americans. Having kids allows them to take advantage of America's generous welfare system for citizens. Your parents didn't illegally make the journey here or falsely claim asylum as millions did under Biden. The situation of today is far different than 50 years ago and a well assimilated example from a time when immigration was much more selective and our population wasn't so big does nothing to change that. Stop rewarding people for circumventing the rules.
Is that not like 90% of our Tax Code Helping Billionaires circumvent the rules NOTHING is more American than rewarding people for circumventing the rules. Trump's whole life is circumventing the rule That is the problem - America is multi-Tiered. . .. only SOME PEOPLE can circumvent the rules Meanwhile we want to Strap others to the LETTER OF THE LAW Grown up is the end of the child as we know it Rocket River
Today is my birthday and people who know me know I don’t make a big deal about it but there is an executive order from the President that is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court that will affect the future of people like me based on our birth. If that executive order had been in effect when I was born I would not be a citizen of the US. I am what is derisively known as an “anchor baby.” Someone who’s parents did not have permanent residence in this country at time of birth but because of the 14th Amendment get citizenship at birth. This executive order would specifically deny birthright citizenship to someone whose parents entered the country legally but were on things like tourism, temporary work visas or like my parents educational visas. People like myself have been called invaders and parasites who are “replacing real Americans”. I have been told that I don’t deserve citizenship and that my parents cheated the system. For all those who believe that I will tell you what I have done with my life as an American. I am an architect who has worked on projects that have generated thousands of jobs. Those include everything from small home additions to stadiums. I am a 4th degree black belt in judo and former collegiate and national level competitor. As a coach I had students who went on to serve in the US military and police. What I am most proud of is I was a Red Cross disaster responder and helped people recover from hundreds of disasters like fires and floods. Following Hurricane Katrina I worked on recovery projects in New Orleans. After Hurricane Ike I led a team of U of MN architecture students to rebuild houses on the Texas coast. When Hurricane Harvey flooded Houston I raised funds and drove down supplies to Houston while much of the city was still underwater. When Minneapolis was wracked with riots and fires following the killing of George Floyd I volunteered to help protect my neighborhood, cleanup and at food drives. While I am proud of what I have done my life isn’t exceptional. There are millions of “anchor babies” and among them are people who are surgeons, first responders, teachers, elected leaders, soldiers, including those who have given their lives for this country. Far from being parasites many of us contribute far more to this country than people whose ancestors came here generations ago. We are not here to “invade” or “replace” Americans. WE ARE AMERICANS There is no reason to believe that future “anchor babies” won’t also contribute to this country like we have. This is a right that came from the battlefields of the Civil War. It was later enshrined in a legal battle before the Supreme Court fought by another Chinese American like myself. To remove or redefine this right is a betrayal of the values that have been with us for generations. It is another attempt to limit what it means to be an American.
