Will ending "birthright citizenship" help to control America's borders?

Per the link below does ending birthright citizenship make sense as a border control measure?

If this is part of a consitutional amendment how are you going to bypass this with a statute?

GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

What is this “recent scholarship” that Mr. Flake is talking about? I don’t see how there’s much to quibble with in:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

And does it strike anyone else as ironic that a man who says “[h]ow in the world can you explain that’s a good policy to have? It simply doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law,” is proposing that they attempt to overrule the Constitution by statute?

As to the question in the OP, are there figures that indicate just how many people are exploiting “anchor babies,” as the article puts it? My impression has been that most illegal immigrants come in by themselves, and send money back home. Without those sorts of numbers, it’s hard to tell how much ending birthright citizenship would help.

Anchor Babies California…Googled

It is a huge problem.

Maybe the exceptions can be found in an emanation or a penumbra.

From one of the googled links:

IMHO, this is SHOULD NOT be seen as a “conservative” issue, but a nationalist issue.

This ought to be an interesting argument.

The only solution to the immigration problem that isn’t totalitarian and ugly is to equalize economies.


Even if the fence is pretty and we plant nice flowers along the moat?

Some lawyers and scholars believe that the passage has to be taken in its entirety:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

I think they’re right. The “and” in the middle says that there are two qualifications for citizenship, not one.

I’d be mighty curious about that “new scholarship”. While I could see the reasoning behind any country limiting jus solis citizenship only on those born of parents subject to its jurisdiction and legally present therein, the Constitution seems pretty stark on that issue. And on an issue such as this, I’d certainly want the new general rule to be in the Constitution itself, rather than in ordinary statute where it may be subject to tinkering based on the panic-of-the-season.

As to whether it would ease current illegal immigration problems… eeehhh, I dunno 'bout that… it sure seems to me the EU countries that do NOT have unconditional jus solis citizenship are NOT necessarily doing great on immigration issues, either.

And seriously, do they think folks who already enter illegally, taking high risks and subjecting themselves to abuse by the people-smugglers and by the hirers of illegal labor, are going to be dissuaded by the idea that a baby will not serve as anchor or entitlement voucher?

Won’t the result just be a bunch of nationless children ? Why would some other country consider foreign born children to be citizens ? What do we do if they turn back such people at the border, or are we the only ones allowed to control our borders ? Will creating a class of permanent noncitizens be such a good idea ?

How reliable are these figures ? Last I heard, the job of hospitals and doctors wasn’t to verify immigration status, so they weren’t even counting. The term “anchor baby” sounds like classic right wing rhetoric, after all.

As to what magellan01 points out, part of the problem is that any person present in US territory IS presumed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA unless specifically excluded (aliens have to pay taxes [whether they DO or not is another issue], can be tried and prosecuted, etc.).

I actually believe this one, if it passes muster, can be pinned on the originalist school of interpetation. The 14th amendment was written to basically overturn Dred Scott and I doubt its original writers meant for it to be applied to illegal immigrants.

So a person born and raised in the United States who happens to be living in, say, Luxembourg, is not a U.S. citizen?

Umm… well, a person who holds a US passport and is living in Luxembourg (sp?) IS subject to the jurisdiction of the united states… in a way that doesn’t exactly apply to illegal immigrants in the US, or possibly their kids. I’m no big fancy lawyer and I’m not sure of the arguments either way, but I’m not sure this is a valid counterexample either.

Good point, that would be a way to tackle it – could even lead to a “softer” meaning in that the requirement be not that the parent be already a citizen or on the way to being a citizen, but rather that his/her presence in the US be bona-fide legal ('cause otherwise you just do away with jus solis and I’d hate to see that happen, as it supports a nationality = bloodline ethos).

I hadn’t thought of the passport thing. I withdraw my counter-example. On the bright side, I checked, and I did too spell Luxembourg correctly!

As mentioned, he is still subject to the jurisdiction of the USA – for one thing, he has to file his 1040 every April. If he went to Luxembourg and announced he renounces his US citizenship and will seek EU citizenship, then he’s opting out.

Ah, someone else had clarified already… :o

Since this has been answered by others I ask you: what is your point? Do you deny that I stated the law correctly? Do you you think “and” means something other than “in additon to”? Do you not think that the law should be adhered to?

WHAT is your point? Really, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from. And please answer the three questions in the above paragraph.