The Controversy Over Birthright Citizenship: A Discussion on Donald Trump and Immigration Law
Recent years have seen a significant debate surrounding the concept of 'birthright citizenship' in the United States, particularly in light of statements made by former President Donald Trump. This practice, where children born to non-citizens in the U.S. are granted citizenship automatically, has been at the center of much controversy and political discourse.
The Industry of Border Crossings for Birthright Citizenship
An industry has developed where pregnant women cross international borders to give birth in the United States, capitalizing on the principle that their children immediately become citizens. This practice is often criticized, with figures like Donald Trump using it as a form of mockery and a point of contention. For instance, reference to a video that mocked Americans for having to work while the speaker does not. This practice has, over the decades, become a significant issue, especially concerning Mexican women crossing into Texas to give birth to their “anchor babies.”
The Historical and Legal Foundation of Birthright Citizenship
The authority of 'birthright citizenship' is rooted in English Common Law, specifically the principle of 'ligealty.' This principle held that all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection were natural-born subjects. This meant that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was automatically protected and had certain rights, regardless of their parents' status.
However, the concept of citizenship was not restricted to those who had taken an oath of allegiance. Aliens in amity who were within the kingdom were also covered under this principle. For instance, children born in England to such aliens were considered natural-born subjects because they were born within the King's protection and allegiance.
There were exceptions, however. The children born within the realm of foreign ambassadors or the children of alien enemies during their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions were not natural-born subjects since they were not born within the King's jurisdiction.
Based on this historical and legal context, the argument to end 'birthright citizenship' is not about abolishing the principle as a whole but rather to regulate it so that it does not apply to the children born to illegal immigrants. Such individuals are not in the country through allegiance and obedience to the 'king' (which here refers to the Constitution and laws of the United States).
The Debate Surrounding Donald Trump's Ideas
Donald Trump has prominently advocated for changes to immigration laws that would limit or abolish 'birthright citizenship.' However, the merits and implications of such a change are highly contested and complex. For many, birthright citizenship makes logical sense, as it ensures that children born in the U.S. are treated as any other children in terms of legal protections, rights, and responsibilities.
It is important to consider the historical context. The idea that a nation should control who gets to be a citizen and who does not is not a new concept. During the 1930s and 1940s, Germany's Nuremberg Laws are a stark reminder of what can go wrong when citizenship and state power are used to establish racial or ethnic superiority.
All naturalized and native-born citizens, regardless of how they acquired their citizenship, are granted the same protections, benefits, and hardships. This inclusive approach ensures that the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship are preserved, fostering a cohesive and unified society.
Regardless of the legal and ethical debates, understanding the complex history and legal foundations of 'birthright citizenship' is crucial for making informed decisions about immigration policy.