"Birthright citizenship" is irrational public policy, but it doesn't have to remain policy. We just :
To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
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."
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
This reform, A) is simple common sense and, B) will never happen. But it's something to think about while waiting for the latest "comprehensive reform" package that will make an intolerable situation even worse.
Comments
Maybe, then, restricting citizenship is contrary to the intent of the Founders.
But, in any case, why restrict birthright citizenship only in the case of children of illegal immigrants? Maybe the children of other undesirables should be made non-citizens as well - children of felons, perhaps? Or children of poor people? Maybe we could give them fractional citizenship, like three-fifths or something.
Might as well just defer to the inevitable and welcome everyone all the time, unenforced laws are a waste of time anyway right?
Come on in, we'll deliver your baby for free, we'll feed him, educate him, take care of all his health concerns for life, and give him a government job for life too! All we ask is you register to vote democrat.
You act as if the folks with gumption enough to undertake the difficult and dangerous task of getting here illegally are lazy. My personal (and perhaps not representative) experience is that the immigrants I encounter are, by and large, more serious about paying their debts than the natural born, second, third, and fourth generation welfare recipients.
You're probably right about the "fresh" arrivals Doug. It takes a few union meetings, protests and some intense "education' from Acorn to get them permanently into the democrats "victim" welfare mentality and subsequently the Democrat party and voting bloc.
I'm sure there are a few that try desperately to hang on to their pride and sense of self worth, but over time all of the "help" and "education" just wears them down to full fledged victim/protected minority status.
"You act as if the folks with gumption enough to undertake the difficult and dangerous task of getting here illegally are lazy."
I think we have lost sight of the fact that these people who come here illegally are illegal aliens. Either change the law or enforce it, simply calling them "immigrants" or "'undocumented immigrants" clouds the issues, ...
Agreed, Larry.
We've got way too much "PC jargon" when we SHOULD be calling things (or people) for what they REALLY are.
Too many shades of gray here.
If you're NOT here (in America) LEGALLY, then you MUST be here ILLEGALLY...period.
Careful guys, they'll start calling us racists, oh wait. Nevermind.