Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments as to whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship. The quick answer, based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, would be “Yes!” Theoretically, such status could not change without a new Amendment to further define citizenship – a rather difficult task to accomplish. So why the debate?

First, the Constitution: "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." It was passed in 1868 with the intent to protect recently freed slaves - those who were already here, but treated like property.

On the other hand, it’s quite easy to argue that automatic citizenship has been abused by those who come here illegally, simply by using their children as a link for themselves. That possible link doesn’t exist in most countries as only about three dozen countries around the world, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, offer automatic birthright citizenship.

Such rights were based in colonialism, something empire builders used when taking over territories not belonging to them. By invading via “mass birth”, one gains more power in the new territory. However, what one uses for their own gain, can also be used against them by those looking to do the same. As a former Pennsylvanian, their political atmosphere changed by the sudden influx of out-of-staters?

Ireland eliminated birthright citizenship in 2005 after 80% of voters rejected it. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan have also done away with it. Most countries now use “right of blood” rather than “right of soil” to recognize citizenship, basically meaning one’s parents need to have gained citizenship first.

Polls vary widely, often based on how the citizenship questions are asked. Generally, most favor citizenship for children born to parents who came here legally, but numbers drop quickly for children born of those who came here illegally. About 90% and 50%, respectively. Older people and those who lean to the political right tend to want to redefine citizenship more than others. Race also plays a role with “minorities” more in favor of keeping the status quo. Another factor was generational. Two-thirds of second-generation Americans were in favor of birthright citizenship but only 45% of those who are third generation or higher were.

However, the United States doesn’t rule by polls. Or at least, it’s not suppose to. The Constitution is the supreme rule of the land. It grants birthright citizenship. Barring a difficult-to-pass new Amendment, the Supreme Court needs to stand by that. However, such citizenship should not be extended to the parents or others who simply gave birth by intentionally using the child as a foundation for themselves.

If we had a government that encouraged self-reliance and limited its socialistic welfare policies, this probably wouldn’t be an issue. Throw in any sort of income redistribution via unavoidable taxes, and suddenly anything can be a problem. Like all politics, all one needs to do is find out who’s receiving, and who’s paying for those receiving.

Source used: National Public Radio