A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act
Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images
Unless there would be no way to read the plain language of the 14th Amendment other than a mandate based upon territorial jurisdiction instead of political jurisdiction (before 1898, nobody read it this way), it is simply imprudent to interpret it in the most stringent way. Doing so would have the effect of almost completely voiding an enumerated power of the people’s representatives.
If Congress is powerless to prevent people from coming here and stealing citizenship, that would mean Congress does not control the power over naturalization.
The operative paragraph of the Ark opinion establishing birthright citizenship for children born to immigrant parents qualifies that they “are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States,” but only “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.” If they are not permitted to reside here, which is the subject addressed in Trump’s birthright order, then all bets are off.
We will always have social disagreements on immigration as a matter of policy, but to eliminate the ability of the people to even debate the future membership of their society will spell the end of our country as a sovereign entity. To create an affirmative right to immigrate and remain in the country against the national will represents that most profound usurpation of a nation’s sovereignty.
During the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, Rep. James F. Wilson (R-Iowa) emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” He reiterated, “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.” How tragic for us to now create the ultimate novel right for foreigners that strips the sovereignty from every citizen.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.