Born in the USA

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Children who were born on US territory automatically acquire US citizenship. Doesn't matter if their parents are legal or illegal immigrants. But many Americans now have a problem with that rule. And Donald Trump advocates for a harsher approach to illegal immigrants, including their children who are born on US soil.

You either have a homeland or you don't have one, he recently said. And he is far from being the only US politician who supports that position. Most Republican candidates either share the same opinion or they are still hesitating about it. But none are outright rejecting it. Only Jeb Bush, whose wife was born in Mexico, and Marco Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants, have publicly stated that they support the current system of obtaining citizenship.

Article 1 of the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalised in the US and being into US jurisdiction are US citizens and citizens of the state in which they live. And no state could adopt laws that restrict the privileges and liberties of the citizens of the United States.

This amendment is from 1868, and it stipulates how US citizenship could be granted to immigrants. But now the debate is which US-born children are under US jurisdiction and which aren't. Almost all participants in this debate hold the position that the children of foreign diplomats who are born in the US should not be considered US citizens by birth. But it gets more complicated when we are talking about US-born children of illegal immigrants, or foreign students, or tourists, etc.

Indeed, tens of thousands of pregnant women arrive in the US with the purpose of giving birth on US territory. For example, 30 thousand come from Asia on a so called "birth tourism". Most of them arrive in California. In the months before giving birth, they settle mostly in South California, where in time their kids would be granted the right to visit free public schools and universities. And while many are seeing a drain on the economy in this, the Constitution is very clear on the question who automatically gets US citizenship.

The 1868 amendment was adopted after the Civil War. The idea was to put an end to racial discrimination by including not only the freed African American slaves into the system of US citizenship, but also all persons who are born or naturalised in the US or who are under US jurisdiction. It is very clear that the authors of this amendment intended to include everybody.

When we look around the world, in fact it turns out such a practice exists in very few places. Only 30 countries, most of them in North and South America, grant automatic citizenship to people who are born on their territory. And the US and Canada are the only ones among the developed countries in that regard.

Most countries consider nationality as something that is transferred from generation to generation - by bloodline, so to speak. But things are different in America: it is a country that has gathered people from all around the world from its very inception, and this diversity is built into the fabric of the American society.

So if the rule for granting US citizenship by birth is abolished, this would fundamentally change the understanding, the purpose, and the character of the American nation. The most important implication of this amendment is that it has been a very successful tool for integration. If it weren't there, there would be a whole generation, or maybe even several generations that would have never been assimilated, because they would have lacked equal rights with the rest of society. And America would have had ethnic problems that are similar to the ones Europe is having right now. So before indulging in populism, perhaps the politicians and their media friends should think very carefully what they are actually advocating for.

Comments

[fieryphoenix.livejournal.com]

Anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, as I'm admittedly not as familiar with the issue and the laws as I'd like to be, so I'm more asking than stating.

X Jurisdiction means simply subject to X law, correct? Then diplomats' children, as you said, would be excluded from American jurisdiction by their diplomatic immunity, as well as any other pre-existing agreement with that status I'm not aware of, whereas immigrants—legal and illegal—arrive under no such special consideration, and so it defaults to "our land, our law" the moment they set foot in the United States. Likewise for tourists, students, and so on. Likewise, I'd think it wouldn't apply to foreign armies invading/occupying portions of US land given the very nature of their entrance, since that falls under the jurisdiction of military law, not U.S. civil court.

One line of thinking I had: in 1868, much of the former Confederacy was occupied but not readmitted fully to the Union. Might the language have also been intended to cover any ambiguities in the status of those born in the seceding states during the war and Reconstruction?

I agree that changing or "reinterpreting" the law on some populist wave changes and disrupts the fundamental character of this country, and it's a good example of why I detest populist waves so much to begin with.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You are correct on both counts,

[garote]

Good god. What the fuck is wrong with automatically being a citizen of the country you were born in??! I'm only asking semi-rhetorically, because I can't think of any objection that doesn't boil down to jingoism.

Even the idea that parents travel here to practice "birth tourism"... So what? Housing isn't free. Food isn't free. I don't have any solid numbers to compare total value added to the economy by these children versus "free" services consumed, but I'm willing to bet good money they end up contributing more to the economy than the average fucking US citizen!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's not about the kids, its about the parents. There is a sense is that the system is being taken advantage of.

Letting the parents stay (and collect benefits) simply because they had an anchor baby is not fair to those who actually went through the rigmarole of immigrating legally.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I've always believed the concern for the fairness to law-abiding immigrants that many conservatives are purporting to espouse, to be disingenuous. In my observation, it's mostly about "people coming to steal our jobs, change our society, cause cultural disruption and put an economic drain on the economy". In other words, selfish motivations concealed under the pretense of giving a shit about some other foreigners who for some reason are better than these illegal foreigners that we shouldn't care about.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and I am pretty sure that many if not most so-called progressives are motivated primarily by envy and misanthropy.

In other word this is about people who dream of some glorious populist uprising wanting to ensure that there are as few checks on their power as possible.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

So, they're pushing for a more generous society - out of misanthropy?

...Ooo-kaaay...


Even if your fantasy were true, that still wouldn't remove even one bit of the conservatives' selfishness and hypocrisy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and?

If you care about the rule of law such perverse incentives are a problem that will need to be rectified at some point. If you don't you have no grounds to complain.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

So do you or don't you care for your constitution, particularly its 14th amendment?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I'm not buying the adage that this is about some sort of "freedom vs authoritarianism" fight. People are not that idealistic. People are mostly pragmatic. And they're mostly driven by their self interests. So no, I'm not buying it. This isn't about "big government - small government". It's about "mine is mine".

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It isn't that complicated...

Progressives love open borders because it gives them more bodies for the mob.
Progressives hate things things like the Electoral College and voter ID laws because they get in the way of using said mob to win elections.

Seems pretty pragmatic to me.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

But why woulnd't open borders give conservatives more bodies for the mob as well? Are they completely incapable of connecting with immigrants, and what's this "true American" core that they're pandering to - and why should it be given privilege over immigrants, since it's a nation built by immigrants in the first place? Why should the law favor those who are already established there at the expense of anyone who'd want to come?

I guess what I'm asking is, what is this America that conservatives want? A nation-state or what? And if yes, then which nation should it be of - how is that nation defined exactly? White English-speaking Evangelical Christians or what? What about the rest, screw them?

[garote]

Sorry; I'm not familiar with the details here. So there's some law at issue here where a US citizen's illegal immigrant parents are protected from deportation?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Essentially yes, as "immediate family of a US citizen" is treated as a seperate immigration category.

[aurfin76.livejournal.com]

Not automatically, have right according birth certificate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

A birth certificate is just... a certificate. It's just confirming the right given to you by the Constitution. If somehow the certificate was lost, you could prove your birth via other means.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on this matter, unless we intend to amend it further citizenship is a constitutional birthright.

That said, we have a rather awkward situation here wherein the existing legal structure and precedents actually reward people for breaking the law and really ought to be changed. The simplest solution in my mind is to say that the rights of citizenship apply to the child only and then offer the parents a choice. Either put the kid up for adoption by a US family, or take them home. Eighteen years later the kid can return on his/her own as a US citizen if they so choose, but the rest of the family would still have to go through the standard immigration process.

[garote]

So the choice is, abandon your child, which is not a "choice" in any sense of the word because it's fucking hideous (not to mention a huge burden on the system),

or leave the country - "go back where you came from" - even if it's a hellscape, and take your kid with you. (Your kid who is an actual US citizen, which raises some strange questions about how we treat "our own".)

- - -

What is the incentive for the United States citizenry to make this happen? Some poor person drops thousands of bucks on a plane ticket (at the very least) to get here, finds a way to clothe and feed themselves, and delivers a baby outside the standard medical apparatus (which would entail a visit from the feds in the recovery room) ... pretty hard worker, obviously ... and we'd rather spend money digging them up and shipping them home, than keep them here where they will continue to work and raise the child?

Sounds like a bogus deal to me.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"digging them up and shipping them home" is a one time expense, and substantially cheaper than paying for their upkeep and benefits over the course of a lifetime.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

So far I have refrained from getting involved, but this is already too much and I couldn't resist.

It has been pointed above that kids who are separated from their families are largely the next potential criminals, and ultimately from your strictly utilitarian/pragmatic point of view, the drain on your economy that this criminal contingency would further create should be a major concern for conservatives (who, as per your assertion, are in favour of the rule of law, after all).

The other point that you somehow conveniently omitted to address is the visible discrepancy between the claim of conservatives that they value the family as the nuclear unit of society, and the fact that your proposal is practically creating thousands if not millions of dysfunctional family units, where that could actually be averted.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ideally the kids would stay with their patents, but even so, we are talking about a subject pool that has already demonstrated a diminished respect for law. The end result is likely to be the same regardless.

We aren't creating dysfunctional family units if the unit is already dysfunctional. If a mother or father makes a habit of smoking crack or committing assault you still arrest them. They don't get a free pass for having a kid.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

So you are buying into Trump's story that the most of these newcomers are inherent criminals? Most of these families are trying to flee exactly the criminals who are running their countries. This is similar to the refugee problem in Europe - people using illegal means to get away from a place of chaos where their lives are endangered. That does not make them inherent criminals. It makes them desperate people. And people like you are too quick to label them as criminals, because that makes it far more convenient to dismiss them.

You don't know what the result would be if families are kept intact. Yet, the data is very clear on the result of families getting broken apart. You are again at the wrong side of history here, if presumably for the right intentions.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

This is wrong on so many levels. Sorry to say it (no, really I'm not), but at this point you've become a caricature of everything that's wrong with conservatives.

[garote]

That is only true if their contribution to the economy is less than what they collect in benefits. What convinces you that it is?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What convinces you that it isn't?