mg
2018-11-04 06:31:39 UTC
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Lets take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
Thats wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that 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. If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didnt, and it does. Its there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those not owing
allegiance to anybody else and not subject to some foreign powerare
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? Its a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesnt mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. Its one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. Theres no reason why the elected president
couldnt tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as birth tourism.
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that if you dont have borders, you
dont have a country. Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Lets take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
Thats wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that 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. If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didnt, and it does. Its there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those not owing
allegiance to anybody else and not subject to some foreign powerare
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? Its a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesnt mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. Its one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. Theres no reason why the elected president
couldnt tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as birth tourism.
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that if you dont have borders, you
dont have a country. Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/