On Sunday, President Trump announced in an interview with Axios on HBO that he will soon pursue an executive order that would officially remove birthright citizenship for children born to noncitizens and undocumented immigrants in the United States. Widely speculated for weeks, Trump officially stated that an Act of Congress is not required for his proposal to take effect and that an executive order will suffice. Trump had this to say regarding whether or not he needed congressional approval to go through with his plan:
A bold and sudden statement, his remarks assuredly sent shudders down Democrat lawmakers’ spines. For years, undocumented immigrants have served a no larger purpose than to provide a far advantageous electorate and constituency for Democratic politicians. Even more advantageous than the immigrants themselves, however, are their children. Colloquially known as “anchor babies”, children born to undocumented immigrants on United States soil entail birthright citizenship upon birth, thus giving them — among many other gracious rights — the right to vote. In addition, once turning the age of 21, these so-called anchor babies may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States — a form of immigration known as chain migration.
In recent years, you were deemed a bigot or a racist if you dare to use the term “anchor babies” to describe these people. Even Google’s dictionary service labels the term “anchor baby” as a categorical offensive term.
In addition to Trump announcing his means of actually accomplishing his proposal, he mentioned something else interesting:
Trump is largely right; Canada is the only other developed country that enables birthright citizenship for children born to noncitizens and undocumented immigrants, and they take in nearly 700,000 fewer immigrants than America accepts each year. Countries like Australia and Ireland have had it outlawed for more than ten years. Even extremely affable open-border countries such as Germany and France have had it abolished for years.
Despite regular legal criticism towards the current practice of birthright citizenship in America, Democrats claim that the policy is constitutional. According to them, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the legal backing for their advantageous policy and will continue to do so indefinitely. It’s quite ironic that they’ll quote the Constitution when it benefits their electoral stature, but will ignore the first ten amendments when it goes against their political beliefs.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, in question, provides the following:
Rejected by most Democrats in the time of its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment was written just after the Civil War, in which it guaranteed basic civil and legal rights for recently freed black slaves. A powerful and just statute, the amendment nullified perhaps one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history, Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Now, however, the amendment takes on an entirely new meaning. Initially ensuring basic legal rights for freed black slaves in America following the Civil War, the amendment now serves as a legal backing for children born to illegal immigrants; an incentive for crime. Following Trump’s announcement, Democrats took center stage in lambasting Trump for his “clearly racist” proposal. Labeling his planned executive order as unconstitutional, the Left made sure that their voice was heard, even if it was filled with faulty logic and unsubstantive claims.
When using the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for their argument in favor of the current policy, the Left conveniently leaves out one phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In other words, those who owe allegiance to other foreign governments cannot become lawful citizens of the United States. This is a crucial phrase to the amendment, but despite the significance of it, it has been completely ignored by politicians for years.
Don’t just take my word for it though. Take the words of the author of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, Senator Jacob Howard:
Under our current laws, any child born to anyone in the United States instantly becomes an American citizen. It doesn’t matter if the child is born to a terrorist couple or gang members, the child is granted birthright citizenship and all of the benefits of it.
Illegal immigrants choose to enter our country illegally. It is not by force or compulsion. It is a willful violation of America’s sovereignty and law. When a person enters a country illegally, they still owe allegiance to another foreign government or entity. They cannot vote in America, nor serve on a jury, nor be prosecuted for treason if they choose to betray our government. They cannot betray our government to begin with, as they have nothing to betray; they do not and can not entrust loyalty or allegiance towards our country. Entering the country illegally is self-evident of that.
The only way you can abjure all allegiances to other foreign powers and pledge loyalty to America, according to the Constitution, is by becoming a legal citizen. Anyone who enters America illegally is not under the complete political jurisdiction of the country, and neither are their children. Yet somehow, a child born to an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen instantly upon birth. It is incredibly unconstitutional and incredulous beyond words.
There’s no doubt that Trump’s plan will garner heavy debate in the high courts over his executive power. No one is entirely sure if he can legally end birthright citizenship solely through an executive order, and that is fair criticism. What isn’t fair criticism, however, is labeling his planned order as racist, or a form of bigotry, or unconstitutional. None of that is simply true, and they know it.
If you take all the political nonsense away from this situation and discern it carefully, there’s one overruling truth that is nothing short of hypocrisy: the Left suddenly caring about the issue of constitutionality. The Left shows us that they’ll praise the Constitution and the law when it garners them political power, but despise and defy it when it goes against their personal doctrinal beliefs. The right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms hardly exists to them. Birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, however, echoes loud and clear.
Thanks for reading.