Immigration Issues
Various topics, including birthright citizenship
Immigration issues are a primary focus of the new Trump administration because they were a central part of his campaign promises and essential to his voters. He did very well among Hispanics, especially in congressional districts along the border with Mexico. He also did well in areas with concentrations of crimes caused by less-savory newcomers.
Self-proclaimed "fact-checkers" constantly called Trump racist because he talked about those immigrants who made life unpleasant for our citizens when they came here. As was the case with European leaders, those in authority deemed it politically unacceptable to say anything unkind about the newcomers. The job of the government is to protect its citizens from dangers. When you let dangerous people in, you aren't doing your job.
Then there's the question of quantity. Globalists are often more excited by the class rings or ties than the American flag. Consider this. Every professional team or quality school has a limit and the ability to select and choose from a pool of candidates. I never had a chance to join a Major League Baseball team.
Those of you with a prestigious resume would resist a law saying that your school had to double its class sizes and move to first-come, first-serve open admission. What would that do to its reputation?
That's how many people feel about open borders. It is up to the government to be selective about who "joins Team USA." We want people who contribute. It is not a matter of race. When cheering in a game, any sports fan knows you "love' or "hate" a player for jersey color, not skin color. Anybody who comes here and contributes is welcome.
Another issue is Milton Friedman's famous quote, "You can have open borders or a welfare state – not both." Before social security, there were no benefits. My paternal grandfather died in 1925. My father was 11 and had to quit school and go to work. Immigrants at that time received no benefits. If the country needed workers, it could take in people at little or no cost to taxpayers. Today, immigrants are provided with housing, and children are schooled at the expense of local governments. Often, these per capita expenses are higher than social security checks.
Quantity is another issue for schools, sports teams, and countries. Housing costs and health systems are both impacted by sheer numbers. Waiting lines at hospital emergency rooms get longer.
Birthright Citizenship
An American citizen has a preference in terms of being able to get family members to the head of the line to enter the country as immigrants. A technique has been used, or overused, by women who are not citizens coming into the country legally or not, just before having a child on American soil. Hence, the child becomes an American by its birthplace.
Before the age of automobiles, let alone airplanes, this was inconceivable. Before the development of the welfare state, it was not financially disastrous. Such a child is called by those who oppose this method "an anchor baby" because a boatload of people can gain entry this way.
The History Channel offers shiplan excellent discussion of the history of birthright citizenship in the United States. I want to thank them. I had a general understanding of the subject, but their article provides excellent details.
They start with the two ways the child of an American citizen becomes a citizen:
children obtain their citizenship at birth through the legal principle of jus soli ("right of the soil")—that is, being born on U.S. soil—or jus sanguinis ("right of blood")—that is, being born to parents who are U.S. citizens.
In the 18th century, the countries in the Americas wanted people to come, so they generally used a form of birthright (jus soli) citizenship. The World Population Review has a webpage covering the status of birthright citizenship legislation worldwide.
In 1790, the nation's first naturalization law came into effect. It stated that "free white persons" could gain citizenship if they had lived in the U.S. for two years and had a good character. The new citizens' children under the age of 21 were given citizenship, too.
Enslaved people and Native Americans were excluded. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision went further and said that even free blacks couldn't be citizens. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed.
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.
The History Channel article comments -
Notably, due to the "jurisdiction" requirement, most Native Americans were excluded from this Amendment.
One court case serves as precedent to interpret this part of the Constitution. The issue involved the reentry into the U.S. of Wong Kim Ark. He had been born in the U.S. to immigrant residents and was returning from a visit. The question was whether his place of birth was sufficient to establish citizenship. In 1898, the court ruled it was, and that case has served as precedent since then.
However, a Cornell Law School case summary notes the nature of a dissent applicable today.
the dissent viewed children born to U.S. citizens born overseas as more deserving of being natural-born citizens than those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, and yet they are not afforded the Constitution's protection. Further, the dissent argued that the "and not subject to any foreign power" provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 showed that Congress intended to exclude children of foreign citizens from the Fourteenth Amendment, as they would be subjects of the same foreign power as their parents.
Based on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fact Sheet, legislation changed the process for documenting the birth of a child born overseas to a U. S. citizen as of November 14, 1986. The 14th Amendment has the standard terminating sectio
n:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In the Ark case, his parents were long-term residents of San Francisco's Chinatown. It was not a case of just visiting long enough to have the child here. In that sense, the value of this case as a precedent for those with little or no time as residents is questionable.
Trump's voters and Trump are clear. Uncontrolled immigration is costly, harmful, and dangerous. The government's is supposed to "provide for the common defense." It is unfair when the federal government lets in vast numbers of people and makes local governments pay for them.