There is some speculation that President Trump is thinking about an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal aliens.
I think that's a bad idea. I'm no immigration expert, but it seems to me that a child born on US soil is a US citizen. That fact may present challenges if the parents are not US citizens, but it is nothing that cannot be overcome.
Certainly with the Honduran caravan making their way through Mexico, the President has plenty of opportunity to talk about a lot of things concerning immigration. We can certainly talk about limiting or ending unchecked benefits to illegal immigrants. We can certainly talk about strengthening border security, or any number of other topics.
Ending birthright citizenship is, in my eyes, a bridge too far. I advise against it.
9 comments:
There is an underground travel business that brings young mothers into the US specifically to give birth so the baby is a citizen. The Chinese have refined this to a very efficient system. We are one of the few countries that allow this. Australia, France India are among those countries that have recently disallowed this path to citizenship.
I am not entirely against it. but I think some hoops should be jumped through if the parents are not US Citizens. Like the baby goes back home with the parents (if parents are illegals). They can take their birth certificates to the US embassy in their parents' country of origin on the child's 18 birthday to claim the opportunity to serve in our military for 6 years to gain full citizenship.
Be here legally or go home for the ten-year penalty before applying for reentry into the country.
And if they do not renounce their citizenship, to whose jurisdiction do they give their allegiance? If you consider children born to diplomats abroad these children retain the citizenship of their parents. You will find that as you delve into the “what if’s” there is no such thing as birthright citizenship. This was not a issue when written since travel between continents was very expensive and the possibility of going back home in two weeks was beyond the means of all but the uber rich. Today that’s a round trip ticket with a 90 day visitor vise.
If the French ambassador's wife pops out a kid in New York, that kid is not a U.S. citizen, but is instead protected by his parent's diplomatic immunity, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the American Government.
Likewise, if a Baby pops out of a tourist or student, or foreign military, or any of a number of people here legally and temporarily, they retain the citizenship of the parents.
Why should illegals have special privileges in this regard?
How about a compromise: the newborn baby of an illegal immigrant DOES NOT receive birth right citizenship. The newborn baby of a green card holder(legal resident alien) DOES receive birthright citizenship.
Seems to me a person holding a "Green Card" is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. People here illegally are only subject to prosecution and deportation.
My understanding is that the crucial language of the 14TH Amendment has not been tested with respect to illegal aliens. As such, I see two possibilities here: 1) this is mid term election chicanery by Trump to paint democrats as the party of illegal immigration which is the drum he beat in 2016, or 2) this is Trump’s distraction to take attention away from other actions he is/will take to limit/eliminate benefits for illegals.
For more on the argument against Birthright citizenship https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/
On this issue you are totally wrong.
Paul L. Quandt
Post a Comment