Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
What I think about birthright citizenship

What I think about birthright citizenship

Last updated on: October 31, 2018 at 2:14 pm by Jane the Actuary

What I think about birthright citizenship 2018-10-31T14:14:34-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Yeah, a more conventional blogpost title would be something like, “what you should think about birthright citizenship,” but I think there’s a lot of room for disagreement here, and I’m not going to claim that I have all the right answers. But let’s think about the issue a little bit.

To begin with, there are three separate issues:

Is citizenship at birth for anyone born in the United States, other than the narrow exception of someone born of two parents present as diplomats with attendant diplomatic immunity, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
Whether or not the above is true, is it appropriate and reasonable to grant citizenship in this manner?
Are there harms to the country resulting from birthright citizenship, and, if so, are there other remedies besides the removal of this provision?

Let me address these in reverse order:

First, those who oppose birthright citizenship point to two different issues: illegal immigrants and birth tourists. With respect to the former, they cite women who cross to the United States while heavily pregnant, and seem to not simply happen to give birth while living illegally in the United States, just because that’s what happens when young adults migrate and find love, but who aim at having American-born children for the benefits they can confer on parents — especially protection against deportation (which isn’t legally the case, strictly speaking, but de facto this moves them to “not a priority”) and the promise that someday a child can sponsor family members for legal residency. With respect to birth tourists — well, who wouldn’t feel that foreigners coming here on tourist visas and staying to give birth to give those children the benefit of American citizenship are unjustly exploiting loopholes? So far as I’m aware, not even immigration expansionists defend this practice, but only suggest that there is little to no quantifiable actual harm being done, so that it’s not worth attempting to end.

Can we end these practices without actually ending birthright citizenship? The former is part and parcel of the question of whether we can step up our enforcement of illegal immigration: if we increase border enforcement, track visa overstays, mandate E-verify, and enforce prohibitions against under-the-table work, so as to result in fewer illegal immigrants, there will be fewer so-called “anchor babies” in the future. Short of that, Congress could easily enough remove parents as a category of relative which a citizen can sponsor for immigration. As to the latter practice, the problem is narrower but there is no immediately obvious solution, since we can’t pregnancy-test every visa applicant. Maybe there are some solutions around the edges, such as prohibiting the practice of running a birth tourist practice — though I’m not sure how clearly a law could be set out that would prohibit birth tourism without ensnaring, say, an Air B&B host whose customer happens to have been pregnant.

Backing up a bit further: is it right or wrong for a child born while a parent is here on a tourist visa, to receive automatic citizenship? I think most would agree that the answer is “wrong.” Does it do us quantifiable harm? It’s easy to imagine scenarios in which these folks later show up as young adults, with their loyalty elsewhere, but with the aim of, say, studying in the United States without the hassle of a student vias, and with eligibility for student aid, to boot — but since the practice is relatively new, we can hardly quantify it. Does denying such a child, whose ties lie elsewhere, U.S. citizenship, in turn, harm that child? No, not unless you define “harm” especially broadly.

But what about the child born of illegal immigrant parents, who intend to stay and who, in practice, will stay, given the consensus, for better or for worse, that parents of U.S. children are generally not targets for deportation? (Yes, I know, there are periodic reports of such individuals being deported, but the vast majority are not.) On the one hand, in almost all cases, claims that these children would be “stateless” are incorrect, as they would be citizens of their parents’ homeland(s). On the other hand, it’s simply wishful thinking to imagine that if these born-in-America children of illegal immigrants were themselves deemed just as illegally present, they would go away. But if we were developing a policy “from scratch”, we might land on something altogether different, for instance, some sort of conditional citizenship which provides no protection against deportation if a custodial parent is to be deported, but converts to “regular” citizenship at the age of majority if the individual has been more or less continuously resident in the country.

So having said all that, back to the original question: what does the 14th Amendment have to say?

It may not be as simple as that narrow definition in which “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to every circumstance except for diplomats. The Heritage Foundation, among other sources, provides a handy run-down of the relevant historical context.

Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.

Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country.

Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which challenged the government’s decision to deny re-entry to a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals who were legally present and permanently residing in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark stands only for the narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing with respect to the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

Without opining on whether “jurisdiction” means “complete jurisdiction” in the manner in which they interpret it, it seems to me that there is not really a good answer on the question of “did those who wrote, voted on, and initially interpreted the amendment intend to include illegal immigrants and tourists?” because those categories simply did not exist at the time.

There was no concept of an illegal immigrant in 1868. if you wanted to come to the United States, you came. The first restriction of any kind was enacted in 1875, the Page Act which prohibited “individual from Asia who was coming to the United States to be a forced laborer, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own country”; the law had the effect of severely limiting the entry of Chinese women because they were viewed as potential prostitutes. The Immigration Act of 1882 forbade convicts, the insane, and those “likely to become a public charge” from entering the country, but it took quite some time beyond that before there would have been people who would have fit the modern category of “illegal alien.” (Though one wonders what would have happened in the event of a woman, newly arrived on Ellis Island and judged unfit to remain, who gave birth before being sent back. Would mother and child have been sent back? Would no one have even given any thought to fighting for the right of the child to remain because it would have seemed preposterous, and no attention was given to any “citizenship rights” because when there were no immigration restrictions applicable to a (non-Chinese) healthy young adult, there would have been no need to argue over status at birth?)

Likewise, the concept of a “birth tourist” — of someone seeking to take advantage of citizenship rights due to birth — would hardly have been comprehensible at the time.

What would the Supreme Court have meant in 1872 when referencing “citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”? Immigration was plentiful, so there were plenty of individuals who were “citizens or subjects of foreign States,” and it seems unlikely that they meant to encompass everyone who had not renounced their foreign citizenship in this exclusion. To my nonexpert eye, it seems more likely that they might have intended to encompass temporary residents as a general class, but that all manner of temporary residents/visitors in 2018 — expats on business assignments, scholars, students — either wouldn’t have existed, or would have consisted of men who would either be unmarried or would have left their wives at home for years at a time. (Fun fact: in the early 1900s, my great-grandfather came from Greece to seek his fortune, and it took 10 years before he was settled and sent for his wife and children.) Looking at the context that the Heritage Foundation (and, again, similar sources) provides, it seems likely that “birth tourists” and others who are clearly here temporarily would fit into this exception — while they might be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in that, had they committed a crime while on our territory, we’d prosecute them, the whole clause is vague enough to suggest that a Supreme Court decision could go either way.

Plus, the amendment is vague as far as timing is concerned: “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.” “Born” is in the past, but “are” is in the present tense, and tends to suggest that the “subject-ness” has to be more ongoing than would be the case if the amendment stated “all persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth, are citizens.” In fact, the construction suggests that in either the case of citizenship by birth or naturalization, one can lose that citizenship by no longer being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — or at least that such citizenship is no longer guaranteed in that case.

But, as much as the Amendment seems to me to have envisioned a distinction between temporary and permanent residents, I don’t see such a distinction between those who are here legally or illegally. Imagine that someone had time-travelled, and said, “hey, what if someday in the future, the country decides to restrict immigration and people cross over illegally anyway? Do you want your amendment to say that their children are citizens, or not?” The amendment drafters may or may not have said, “oh, that’s a good idea, we should be more specific.” But they weren’t.

And ironically, this is where anti-illegal immigration folk who want to wish away this problem become like gun control folk who want to wish away the Second Amendment. “Surely if the drafters had known that someday there would be immigration restrictions, they would have taken that into account” sounds a lot like “surely if the Founding Fathers had known that we’d have not just muskets but semiautomatic rifles, they wouldn’t have permitted them.”

So that’s where I’m at.

If I haven’t lost you already by my overly-long post, what do you think?

Image: By Lewis W. Hine(Life time: 1874-1940) – Original publication: Photo-studyImmediate source: Brooklyn Museum, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51292180. The text which is cropped off says that the worried looks are due to lost luggage, a detail I found interesting since this picture seems to be a standard one exemplifying hardships of new arrival.

We want to know what you think about the upcoming midterm elections. Vote in our poll below!

Previous Post

October 27, 2018

Antisemitism: the stupidest prejudice

Next Post

October 31, 2018 My last Halloween costume

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah Samuel Moses Elisha