Birth Right Citizenship is Least Bad Option

The debate over immigration, legal and otherwise, has finally moved to the question of American citizenship. Specifically, the Republicans and independent nativists have suggested that repealing the 14th Amendment, which makes everyone born in the US a citizen automatically, should be part of the solution. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said of the proposal today, "I think it's worth considering." Fair enough, but full and careful consideration shows that the current arrangement is the least bad approached to citizenship.

The argument against birthright citizenship goes something like this. Non-Americans arrive in the US illegally (or legally and then, they over-stay their visas, thereby becoming illegals), and they have babies. Those babies, thanks to the 14th Amendment, are American citizens as soon as they are out of the womb. That "anchor baby" can then use America's immigration laws to bring relatives in, and legalize his or her parents' status. In short, the family is rewarded for breaking the law. And clearly that is an injustice against American citizens and against immigrants who arrive in the US legally and maintain legal status.

However, the flaw here is not with birthright citizenship but rather in the way immigration law favors family reunification. While bringing families back together does prove for Hallmark moments of warm fuzzy feelings, bringing grandma and grandpa from the old country does not benefit the US. Nor does bringing in small children. Far better would be a system that favors immigrants who have skills and earning power without reference to who one's parents are or are not. Were this approach adopted (cold-hearted though it might be), that anchor baby would become less able to bring in relatives who could not contribute. That is the real fear of the nativists, that immigrants come to America to life a life of luxury on welfare funded by taxpayers. One is doubtful of this, but the policy addresses this concern (although immigrants would be better off trying to make it to Scandinavia rather than Mississippi).

The only alternative to America's jus soli (roughly translated as "right of the soil") is jus sanguinis ("right of blood"). Most countries in the world operate under this system, which means one inherits citizenship from one's parents. Thus, Germany has Turkish residents, whose grandchildren were born in Germany, educated in Germany, speak German and are not German citizens. At the same time, Germany has admitted to citizenship descendants of those Germans who settled Russia and Ukraine 300 years ago. The social problems created are legion.

In America, the jus sanguinis would likely prove unworkable. One would have to prove one's parents were citizens, and in order to prove they were citizens, one would have to investigate grandparents ad infinitum. Unfortunately for the descendants of those who landed on Plymouth Rock, the Pilgrims had no visas. Even if the law allowed grandfathering for all who are citizens by birth now, there are still 12 million or so in the US illegally. How does the government deal with them and their offspring?

Birthright citizenship does deserve reconsideration. By reviewing it, people will come to see its superiority over jus sanguinis and perhaps come to appreciate what citizenship really is. It is not the right merely to reside in a certain area. It is being an active and engaged member of a polity. By that measure, America could do with more citizens and fewer residents -- including those born in the country.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home