I saw that the following Washington Post article generated some consternation in another thread and thought the issue warranted its own discussion.
My read is that the following sentence is the key point/policy objective:
Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment.
I’m curious what about this statement riles up some Americans? My views across political topics tend to be pretty mixed across party lines, but I’m unclear why this one in particular generates so much pushback (presumably from left-leaning voters). Is the concern that if this were changed, it would be the beginning of a slippery slope towards even more restrictive citizenship rules? That this simply is part of America’s DNA, and something of a sacred cow? I’m really curious about the moral/logical arguments for unrestricted birthright citizenship.
My view is sympathetic to the quote above, that we should have more conditions on citizenship for children of non-citizens. To be clear, I don’t think this sort of policy change should be applied retroactively, and if it were adopted would need a clear phase-in period. I’m not for taking away citizenship from anyone, ever.
My thinking is based mostly on Chinese deliberately coming to the US to give birth only for a US passport for their children, a service which is heavily advertised here (in China). That has little to do with a desire to be an American (freedom, liberty, etc) and everything to do with having an escape plan if China’s political situation goes pear-shaped, to increase the chance of admission to US schools, and to reduce visa issues when traveling (among other non-patriotic issues). I’m not sure why those motivations warrant citizenship.
I was curious about how widespread this policy is across countries. According to the below link it turns out the US changing this policy wouldn’t even be particularly draconian by developed country standards - only Canada is similar to the US in birthright citizenship, and apparently not as a relaxed. The concept isn’t accepted outside of the Americas, with an interesting theory about why:
One explanation may be colonialism, said John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego. As European countries colonized the Americas, Skrentny said, many created lenient naturalization laws in order to grow and overpower native populations.
“Getting people to move in was a good way to establish authority,” he said.
So, what are your thoughts on why this policy should or shouldn’t change?