On birthright citizenship: the truth, the whole truth, and the “Trump truth”
The other day Axios quoted Donald Trump as having said “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits.” Then Axios added “more than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship,” with a link on those words to this 56-page law review article.
My guess is that few people will follow the link, and even fewer will actually try to swallow a dry law review article of such enormous length. If they read the first page or two, they’ll see that the thrust of the article is to say that even a constitutional amendment banning birthright citizenship would be a violation of basic “human rights” as defined by international law.
I’m not going to read all 56 pages of the law review article either. But I’ll take Axios’ word for it that somewhere in the vast reaches of its pages a person could find a list of the “more than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, providing birthright citizenship.”
But there are much easier ways to get the information, which is obtainable at Wiki, for example. This entry and list as well as the following handy map came up as number 2 on the list when I did a Google search for “birthright citizenship.” Dark blue are the countries that have it and lighter blue those that have a modified and restricted form of it (the Wiki article itself goes into more country-by-country detail):
:
The effect of that Axios article on the casual reader would almost certainly be “hmmm, Trump is either lying or ignorant. Lots and lots of nations do exactly what we do.” The less casual reader—the reader who bothered to follow the link to that law review article—would probably add, “and what’s more it’s the proper thing to do in terms of human rights.” One reader in a million might pause to think “hmmm, that means that the only other developed country in the world that allows birthright citizenship to the extent that the US does is Canada. And unlike the US, Canada lacks a border with a state such as Mexico, from which a lot of people might be tempted to come in order to gain citizenship that way.”
The only border Canada has with anyone is with the US. And although there may be some US citizens or residents yearning for Canadian citizenship for their babies, I doubt that number is more than a very very few.
The point is that we’re the magnet for birthright citizenship and also for what’s called “birth tourism,” which is a separate but related issue.
Axios might just as easily written something like this: “Most of the countries in the Western Hemisphere also have birthright citizenship, but the only first world country other than the US that has it is Canada, and all the countries of Europe and the UK have banned and/or restricted it, as have most of the other countries of the world.” That’s a very different message, but it’s one that Axios did not give, although it would have been a simple matter to have done so, and would have given its readers the most accurate picture of the situation.
And Axios is not alone. For example, here’s John Cassidy in The New Yorker:
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for eighty-five years with all of those benefits,” Trump told reporters from Axios. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”…
The first part of this statement was a Trump truth—that is, a blatant falsehood. Many other countries, including Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, have birthright-citizenship laws.
If you want to get really technical about it, the first part of Trump’s statement was a literal truth: we are the only country in the world in which a person entering can have a baby that becomes a citizen of the US. But I’ll not nit-pick, because that’s not what Trump seems to have been trying to say. Trump appeared to be saying that we are the only country with birthright citizenship, and that’s certainly not the case.
But just as with Axios—although Cassidy’s method is slightly different—Cassidy leads the reader astray by subtly implying that those “many” unnamed countries would be something on the order of Canada (the first one he lists), Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico—that is, either first-world countries or countries that are doing relatively well compared to the third-world countries that happen to actually constitute the rest of those “many countries” that have birthright citizenship. And Cassidy doesn’t even provide a link of any sort to the list, so that a reader could see for him/herself what those fairly abysmal countries are.
So here we have Trump being hyperbolic and untruthful, and implying that we’re the only ones with this policy. But his critics are being misleading (although in a more subtle way), implying that Trump’s point is ridiculous and that automatic birthright citizenship is commonplace and ordinary, and that there are many other nations that have the same situation regarding birthright citizenship as we do.
That is not the case at all. In fact, the US is the only highly-developed first-world country that (a) gives birthright citizenship, and (b) shares a border with a relatively undeveloped and crime-ridden country, and is therefore in a position to give relatively easy access to citizens of that country (Mexico, in the case of the US, as well as impoverished and crime-ridden Central America). Canada does not share that situation. All other countries in the world who do have a situation even remotely like ours forbid birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants. And most of the countries of the world that allow birthright citizenship are not what you’d call magnets for immigration or birth tourism. Au contraire.
I wish Trump would somehow convey that information more clearly. I wish it were easy to do it succinctly. But what Trump certainly does do is to get people’s attention.
Lindsay Graham, who is a lawyer, managed to say it this way:
“The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth,” Graham said. “This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end.”
“I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President,” the South Carolina Republican said in a statement.
I have yet to locate exactly what those lines of a Trump executive order on this would be, but I assume that no one—not even Trump—is proposing an end to birthright citizenship. He is proposing placing some limits on it. I assume that the children of legal immigrants would still automatically become citizens, the children of tourists would not, and the children of illegal immigrants would not.
Up till now, most people in this country haven’t paid much attention to birthright citizenship. They’re paying a lot more attention now.
[NOTE: I didn’t mention it in the post, but I wonder what was left out by Axios with that ellipsis (…) in Trump’s quote, and I wonder whether it would change the meaning of what he said at all. Maybe yes, maybe no.]
Actually, what Pres. Trump said is true.
Quote: We’re the only country in the world where a foreigner comes in, has a baby, and it becomes a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES. Unquote, paraphrased.
Foreigners who go into OTHER countries and have a baby, and if that baby becomes a citizen, h/she becomes a citizen of THAT COUNTRY, not the US.
Personally I think the law needs to be changed, as does Trump, and whether an EO can do it he doesn’t care, he just wants to make it an issue by bringing it up.
I love the way everyone is screaming about how unconstitutional it is to get rid of birthright citizenship. An executive order to do this probably isn’t a legit way, it seems to me Congress should handle this, which I’m glad Lindsay Graham is doing (dude’s on a roll). But it won’t get over the 60-vote hump.
Nonetheless, I think Trump did a good thing by sparking a long overdue conversation. I think the rest of the GOP in Congress are starting to wake up to the fact that we don’t have to maintain the status quo any more, which is pretty much what they’ve been doing when they gain power, making only mild and incremental changes. Now if they could only get serious about reining in spending.
If Trump were to issue an EO specifying no citizenship or passports for U.S. born children of diplomats or heads of state, then he would be enforcing black letter constitutional law. And the left would still flip out, which would be instructive for the country.
How did that get switched anyway? Under which president?
_____
“… even a constitutional amendment banning birthright citizenship would be a violation of basic “human rights” as defined by international law.”
I love this point. This is the Justice Stevens wing of SCOTUS jurisprudence. Their decisions must strive towards compliance with international law, according to him. Sheesh!
_____
Again, what happened to Lindsey Graham? He was never like this before.
ConceptJunkie,
I hate to say it, but even with the current makeup of the House, they won’t break the 50% threshold. Paul Ryan doesn’t want to change the nature of birthright citizenship even a little bit. I’d like to think he is a one-off aberration, but he isn’t.
The one word explanation is, GOPe. There are lots of wealthy Wall-Streeters in there, who provide a large chunk of funding to the GOP, and many or most of them are completely comfortable with corporatism. That is, the marriage of big gov. and big business, even if it means taxing the bejesus out of the fly-over country while flooding it with immigrants.
Real grass roots activism died with the Tea Party. The GOPe could have either embraced the Tea Party or kill it, and they chose the latter. They were fully prepared for the Hillary Clinton presidency …, then Donald Trump happened.
Trump and an increasing groundswell of conservative support, could move the needle, but it has to be substantially big and aggressive. If that happens, then you know it will lead to the left (& George Will types) calling people like Neo (& me) a “Hitler enabler,” with all the absurdity that would entail.
Meanwhile, several liberal people I know are frantically applying for dual citizenship to Ireland and Canada. They plan to bug out there when America collapses because they believe America is Hitler.
So I say, “maybe I should apply for Israeli citizenship, after all my mom was Israeli,” and they look at me like I’m crazy for wanting to bug out to Israel to escape Hitler. Lol.
So many opportunities for laughing at absurdity, if one just looks.
The illegal alien invaders are headed STRAIGHT for out welfare roles.
PERIOD.
An Exodus from persecution — is not the situation — at all.
Who cares what the rest of the world does about birthright citizenship? Let’s focus on what’s best for the United States.
Based on what Paul Ryan said, I don’t think Graham’s bill would even get a hearing in the House. I disagree with Ryan. If Congress could add persons to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as it did in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act, I fail to see a reason why it cannot remove certain people from such jurisdiction.
Here is the entire text of the Indian Citizenship Act:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
(Wouldn’t it be great if they would write statutes like this today, instead of the 2,000-page loophole-strewn, lobbyist-written, earmark-studded monsters we get?)
How about this:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born within the territorial limits of the United States of a parent or parents in the United States illegally or on a tourist visa, not be, and they are hereby, declared not to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the denial of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the application of all federal and state criminal and civil laws, other than those concerning citizenship, to such persons or their parents.”
Esther, why don’t these liberals apply for citizenship in Cuba or Venezuela……..?
democrats are now calling every registered hispanic in the country telling them that they will lose their citizenship if they don’t go out and vote.
Richard, when I suggest Mexico as an alternative they splutter and become inarticulate. Which is funny too, but depressingly like fish in a barrel.
At present, I can prove my citizenship by presenting my birth certificate. Presumably, something more would be required if the US did away with birthright citizenship.
Does anybody know how that works in those other countries without birthright citizenship? Does some government agency make a determination?
No agenda here, just curious.
Curious:
As I wrote in the post, the proposal is not to “do away with birthright citizenship.” The proposal is to do away with it in certain situations.
But you are correct that a birth certificate saying a person was born in the US would therefore not be enough. I don’t know how other countries handle it, but I’m sure there’s a way.
An unambiguous interpretation would be that the child inherits the legal status of her mother and father a la “the People” and “our Posterity”.
Why should we give a damn about what other countries do about immigration or how a person legally becomes a citizen? I am totally with JFM on this issue. The concept of anchor babies needs to end.
Neo,
You are right – other countries have to have ways to determine who is and who is not a citizen. I am just curious to know what some of those ways might be. In this country I suspect that it would have to involve an additional layer of bureaucracy.
What could go wrong?
Again, just curious.
Neo, don’t some of the “birthright” countries require at least one parent to be a legal resident? I did read that somewhere, not sure where. And of course could be completely wrong.
parker; JFM:
Well, in this case, what other countries do mostly is identical or similar to what Trump wants to do, although the press seems to want you to think otherwise.
LYNN HARGROVE:
No, I don’t think that’s correct. What you’re describing is a modified form of birthright citizenship.
First, I believe Trump’s meaning was to say no other [developed] country does it like America, which is almost true because none do in Europe but Canada, alone, is developed and does it.
Still, anybody who calls Trump a liar is … not accurate … not true … is themselves a liar. Because a baby born in Canada is not a US citizen — which is actually what Trump said.
Critics can’t change what somebody actually says to what they think is meant, and then call them liars about it — without themselves being liars.
Trump is right to end it. He should do the Exec Order, and let the Dem dominated courts make some injunction about it and have it go up towards the SCOTUS. In the meantime, Graham should introduce a law. Let the Dems go on record supporting it — and in the discussion note how it’s only Canada, protected by the US, which has it (other than US).
I hear so many people saying “subject to the jurisdiction.” I am an American living in Germany, and I am certainly subject to its jurisdiction WRT speed limits and other minor things of everyday life. In the bigger things, I am subject to America’s jurisdiction. I get info from the US Consulate about voting and avoiding dangerous situations. I have a US passport. I think the children with parents of different nationalities should have to choose one when they reach adulthood, no matter which country they were born in. I am legally here and have a German ID card and drivers license, but I expect that if there was a serious international legal problem for me, the Germans would expect my own government to step in.
Children of people on the road to US citizenship and green card holders should be eligible for US citizenship if they have lived for a specified time in the US. Children of illegals should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. Birth tourism should not be allowed. When all the laws about birthright citizenship were passed, it was not possible to fly to another country in less than a day and stay on a tourist visa.Sometimes laws do need to change to reflect drastically different situations. You didn’t need a drivers license to take a Conestoga wagon across the country.
ConceptJunkie on November 1, 2018 at 1:55 pm at 1:55 pm said:
…
Nonetheless, I think Trump did a good thing by sparking a long overdue conversation. I think the rest of the GOP in Congress are starting to wake up to the fact that we don’t have to maintain the status quo any more,
* * *
That’s one way to “fundamentally transform” America that I could support.
Stare decisis is for judicial decisions (and not always even so).
The essential point of having a legislature (popularly elected especially) is precisely to make changes to the status quo without having to go through a revolution to do it.
expat on November 1, 2018 at 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm said:
…Children of illegals should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. Birth tourism should not be allowed. When all the laws about birthright citizenship were passed, it was not possible to fly to another country in less than a day and stay on a tourist visa.Sometimes laws do need to change to reflect drastically different situations. You didn’t need a drivers license to take a Conestoga wagon across the country.
* * *
See “changing the status quo” above.
The open borders groups also try to conflate the immigration patterns of the 18th and early 19th century with today, especially claiming that “legal restrictions” are something new. However, with many of the early colonies, the immigrants had to have some kind of permission from the British government or one of its authorized corporations to enter and/or reside in an established community, and they locked up the “property rights” pretty tightly before the Revolution.
After that, I don’t really know what the legal situation was; but restrictions were certainly in place in the early 20th century. See the article below. Note that it mentions Sen. Kennedy’s reassuring promises about the effects of the 1965 immigration act, but not that he lied through his teeth.
This paragraph intrigued me, and pretty much tells you why our situation now is so fraught.
“The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, led by former Rep. Barbara Jordan, ran from 1990 to 1997. The Commission covered many facets of immigration policy, but started from the perception that the “credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave”.[5] From there, in a series of four reports, the commission looked at all aspects of immigration policy.[6] In the first, it found that enforcement was lax and needed improvement on the border and internally. For internal enforcement, it recommended that an automated employment verification system be created to enable employers to distinguish between legal and illegal workers. The second report discussed legal immigration issues and suggested that immediate family members and skilled workers receive priority. The third report covered refugee and asylum issues. Finally, the fourth report reiterated the major points of the previous reports and the need for a new immigration policy. Few of these suggestions were implemented.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
neo on November 1, 2018 at 6:15 pm at 6:15 pm said:
Curious:
As I wrote in the post, the proposal is not to “do away with birthright citizenship.” The proposal is to do away with it in certain situations.
But you are correct that a birth certificate saying a person was born in the US would therefore not be enough. I don’t know how other countries handle it, but I’m sure there’s a way.
* * *
Other countries are much smaller and have a history of requiring their residents to carry and produce documentation about their status. It’s no accident that the Left started calling illegal immigrants “undocumented” —
However, if birth certificates had to be expanded to include the citizenship status of the parents, we could be in for a real can of worms: we can’t even agree on how to list the children’s or the putative parents’ sex on the forms now!
Richard on November 1, 2018 at 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm said:
Esther, why don’t these liberals apply for citizenship in Cuba or Venezuela……..?
* * *
Same reason Barbra Streisand isn’t moving there if the GOP keeps the House this month.
Midterm elections 2018: How to move to Canada? Barbra Streisand …
https://www.usatoday.com/story/…move-canada-barbra-streisand/1838909002/
9 hours ago – Barbra Streisand moving to Canada over midterms? … Barbra Streisand told the New York Times she may move to Canada if Republicans keep their grip on the House. But Americans rarely do after elections.
* * *
Among the many promises Dems never keep….
Curious,
Two of my children were born in Germany and one in Korea. They have German and Korean birth certificates but they aren’t German and Korean citizens. One of the first things I had to do was obtain pictures of the baby in the crib then go to the US Consulate and obtain a passport for it. The baby had to have a passport to enter the US. The children also have State Dept. birth certificates.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html
Best article on this seems to be
Birthright Citizenship and Its Allies
By Pedro Gonzalez on American Greatness .
Explains what “jurisdiction” means in this context, no other allegiance but to the U.S. Even American Indians were found to not be citizens under the 14th amendment because of their tribal allegiance which is to a sovereign nation. Congress quickly passed a law making them citizens. Other rulings such as diplomats children are not citizens exist. However there is no ruling on illegals. Therefore the matter needs to get before the Supreme Court where there is a good chance of a ruling that children of illegals are not citizens because they have an allegiance to the country of the parents.
To get the matter before the court you need a vehicle, a case, and an executive order seems like an excellent choice for such a vehicle.
Glen, I was just going to link to that article. Since you didn’t provide the link, here it is. Apparently, as is frequent with Trump, this executive order isn’t as crazy as it initially sounded.
https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/02/how-progressives-killed-birthright-citizenship/
Thank you Kate for unknown reason I could not get a link to work.
In this instance, ‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ does NOT mean traffic laws, etc.- as liberals would like us to believe. Do foreign nationals register for the draft?
The Wikipedia page for Jus Soli (e.g. Birthright Citizenship) reports that it does not apply in Canada to children where neither parent is a citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. Assuming this is correct, John Cassidy turns out to be about as accurate as President Trump
“Fact Checking” is typically an exercise in missing the point of things. Context. Relevance. Who needs them.