Maggie's Farm

Several Republican US Senators are now supporting hearings into whether there should be a Constitutional amendment restricting birthright citizenship, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

There’s some electoral opportunism there as well as recognition that most Americans want more restrictions on illegal immigration.

About a fourth to a third of illegal immigrants in the US are parents of children born here. In some localities, the majority of births are to illegal immigrants, many of them coming into the US specifically for that purpose. Although by laws these parents are denied most governmental benefits, they are permitted to stay to care for their children, and many do work illegally. The children may petition for legal entry of other family members.

There is no legal doubt that the US has the complete right to govern entry and citizenship. There is doubt as to whether the post-Civil War 14^th Amendment, aimed at the citizenship of former slaves, intended to allow the birthright citizenship that we see today.  Advocates of restriction cite the statement of a co-sponsor of the 14^th.  However, the language of the 14^th has been interpreted in various ways by scholars and politicians over the next years and century-and-a-half. There are some peripheral court cases but the US Supreme Court has not specifically weighed in.

At this point, it seems that only a well-drafted Constitutional amendment would be able to restrict birthright citizenship. Surely there would be majority consensus to do so, requiring at least one parent to already be a citizen.

However, there are implications that must be considered. Should such children already here be allowed to retain citizenship? I’d guess yes. Should their parents be allowed to stay? I’d guess yes, with a path to citizenship. Should the children of legal entrants who have not yet become citizens be automatically granted citizenship? I’d guess not, at least until the parents have qualified and the children too. Some may consider that rewarding past behavior, and it is, but in a grand bargain and out of compassion, I’d guess there’d be the overwhelming support required for a Constitutional amendment.

I’d suggest the language can be as simple as “Only a child born of at least one US citizen will be a US citizen. All others are subject to US laws of entry, residence and citizenship.”

Yes, there will be resistance from those who want virtually open borders and those who benefit from hiring illegals, and from politicians whose constituency is such, but they are a minority and have little or no legal basis. There are valid emotional appeals to our past and to compassionate values but they, if not a purposeful distraction, are a recipe for enlarging the problems. Our past did not have the current practical burdens upon citizens or entrants.

As strong border controls are essential to reducing illegal entry, so are removing incentives to illegal entry or staying. Uneducated illegal entrants are the main problem in net costs to our economy and government budgets. The US has need of some, and some are or will become or their offspring become net contributors. But, not as many as once or now or in the future.  A Constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship directly deals with a substantial part of the problem in a reasonable, cost-effective and widely-supported way.

UPDATE: According to the respected PEW Research Center's Hispanic Center, there are over 4-million children in the US of illegal immigrants, and they make up 8% of the US birthrate.