Ending Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants: Is This Awesome?
Recognizing that without me, it can only ever be Aweso, I want to hear what all you fine people have to say about this:
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
This is George Will arguing that we should reinterpret the 14th amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:
"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."
So perhaps a better interpretation of the 14th amendment would exclude the children of non-citizens. There's some pluses and minuses here:
Plus: If we got rid of birthright citizenship, there'd be a LOT less incentive for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. Right now illegal immigrants know that if they can stay here under the radar long enough to have a kid, that kid will be a citizen and get to stay forever. As Graglia points out, that's quite a prize.
Plus: As Will points out, ending the practice might make the immigration debate a lot less acrimonious, or at least seem less urgent to anti-illegal immigration forces. Right now, every day that goes by without mass deportation results in more American citizen children whose families aren't citizens. If/when we finally get around to deporting the parents, we've got to deal with potentially breaking up families. Nobody wants to do that. Without birthright citizenship, there's no ticking timebomb, and anti-immigration forces might be a little bit less hot under the collar and more willing to negotiate and compromise. I'm not talking about Tom Tancredo, here, but the moderates who are going to have to be part of whatever solution happens.
Minus: Right now if we built an impenetrable wall across all of our borders, the illegal immigration problem would fix itself in a couple generations--the descendants of all our illegal immigrants would be citizens, and all would be right with the world. If we get rid of birthright citizenship, we've got a perpetual underclass with no expiration date but ICE agents at their door.
Minus: I think a general bias against reinterpreting the Constitution is prudent.
What do y'all think?
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
This is George Will arguing that we should reinterpret the 14th amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:
"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."
So perhaps a better interpretation of the 14th amendment would exclude the children of non-citizens. There's some pluses and minuses here:
Plus: If we got rid of birthright citizenship, there'd be a LOT less incentive for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. Right now illegal immigrants know that if they can stay here under the radar long enough to have a kid, that kid will be a citizen and get to stay forever. As Graglia points out, that's quite a prize.
Plus: As Will points out, ending the practice might make the immigration debate a lot less acrimonious, or at least seem less urgent to anti-illegal immigration forces. Right now, every day that goes by without mass deportation results in more American citizen children whose families aren't citizens. If/when we finally get around to deporting the parents, we've got to deal with potentially breaking up families. Nobody wants to do that. Without birthright citizenship, there's no ticking timebomb, and anti-immigration forces might be a little bit less hot under the collar and more willing to negotiate and compromise. I'm not talking about Tom Tancredo, here, but the moderates who are going to have to be part of whatever solution happens.
Minus: Right now if we built an impenetrable wall across all of our borders, the illegal immigration problem would fix itself in a couple generations--the descendants of all our illegal immigrants would be citizens, and all would be right with the world. If we get rid of birthright citizenship, we've got a perpetual underclass with no expiration date but ICE agents at their door.
Minus: I think a general bias against reinterpreting the Constitution is prudent.
What do y'all think?