President Trump had said during his campaign that he thought our rewarding the “anchor-baby” strategy to be a gross distortion of intended purpose; Unjust on its face, costly, and a corrupt magnet enticing people to make a very dangerous journey which subjects them to predatory coyotes, criminals, the desert and the elements. He’d said as a candidate that he hoped to change the executive-branch policies which have presumed the 14th Amendment to have conferred citizenship to anyone born on our soil, whether legally or not; a presumption that has resulted in grotesque abuse of expectant women, infants and the goodwill of US Citizens.
As reported in the NYT, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and others, president Trump has recently announced that he will soon issue an executive order which limits the US Gov’t’s recognition of citizenship to those born of lawfully-present people.
This long-overdue bit of common sense proceeds from the rational conclusion that a person must be recognized as lawfully present to be considered a citizen. Unless legally present, in the eyes of the Law, the mother wasn’t present within our country at the time of the birth. Therefore, her child is a citizen of the country in which her legal presence is recognized.
While we are a caring nation which will clearly ensure the safety of an illegally-present mother-to-be and her child, we must eliminate the incentive for subjecting pregnant women to a dangerous journey and the corruption attendant to pouring taxpayer resources into migrants enticed by welfare rather than by legitimately-offered opportunity.
Before the USA built an elaborate welfare state, it was clear that economic opportunity was the attraction to our country. Sadly, this can no longer be confidently stated, especially about those who cross our borders illegally only to begin making immediate demands on publically-funded support services.
Each time the “anchor-baby” strategy is successfully deployed, our government has obliged itself to healthcare, housing, food, education, etc., not only for the child but for his/her parents. (While welfare benefits are technically denied to non-citizens, an eligible child in the household “entitles” the household to housing and other benefits.)
Rewarding any illegal act is unjust on its face. This one has multigenerational implications which have become exponentially larger with every year. Our illegal population is estimated at 22 million today.
It’s well past time we discontinue any policies that entice more illegal immigration.
A baby cannot be “subject to” jurisdiction. “Protected by” is an entirely different thing.
Babies are “protected by” our state and federal jurisdictions, but they are not “subject to” them until the child is eligible to be incarcerated.
The present use of the 14th Amendment’s birthright clause OMITS the phrase, “… and subject to the jurisdiction…”
The “letter of” the law must not omit whole phrases.
Rather than being conferred by physical presence alone, many constitutional scholars are advising that birthright citizenship is conferred by the combination of birthplace AND being “…subject to the jurisdiction…” This phrase is a legal term of art having specific meaning to the DRAFTERS and RATIFIERS of the 14th Amendment; legal, lawful presence being key.
I am on the fence on this topic. While I agree that there is a perverse incentive for pregnant women to undertake a dangerous course of action to cross the desert to get onto American soil, I also wonder how big of a problem this truly is. I think more facts are needed. If our objective is to keep people out of the US, then this initiative by POTUS may work. However, the question in my mind becomes what makes someone an American citizen then? I’ve always believed that you are a citizen of the country you are born in subject to the laws and regulations of the land. If that weren’t the case then we could end up with “stateless” people as had happened in many times across with world.
The present use of the 14th Amendment’s birthright clause OMITS the phrase, “… and subject to the jurisdiction…”
The “letter of” the law must not omit whole phrases.
Rather than being conferred by physical presence alone, many constitutional scholars are advising that birthright citizenship is conferred by the combination of birthplace AND being “…subject to the jurisdiction…” This phrase is a legal term of art having specific meaning to the DRAFTERS and RATIFIERS of the 14th Amendment; legal, lawful presence being key.