Posted on 08/24/2015 4:18:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservatives usually believe in American exceptionalism, and in upholding the Constitution. Which is why it's strange to see so much conservative ebullience over Donald Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship.
It's not news that there are a significant number of Americans who are anxious about immigration — illegal and otherwise — and that they exert considerable political clout (though ultimately less than is sometimes breathlessly suggested). And many of those people fret about so-called "anchor babies." The problem with "anchor babies" is that they're a myth. (Trust me. As a Frenchman with a fertile wife who often wanted to emigrate to the U.S., I did the research.)
This fight therefore nicely serves to highlight the fact that most (though not all) fears related to immigration belong more to the realm of fantasy than reality.
But it also illustrates something else: how the restrictionist position is all too often born of a lack of confidence in the American project.
After all, the two are inseparable. Birthright citizenship says, quite explicitly, "The American project is so strong, our culture is so strong, our values are so strong, that any baby born on our soil, no matter where his parents come from, will ultimately grow up to be a well-adjusted American, so that we don't need to wait for him to prove himself to extend citizenship."
Which, again, goes to highlight the tension between extreme restrictionism in immigration and conservative values. Conservatives typically display above average, not below average, confidence in the American project and in the capacity of judicious applications of American patriotism to solve problems.
There's another funny intersection between birthright citizenship and the conservative worldview, and I have an unusual window into it. As I said, I'm a Frenchman. France and the United States are unusual in both being nations explicitly founded (or refounded) on Enlightenment values. And one trait they share is that they both instituted birthright citizenship.
One reason was the Enlightenment-driven belief, over and against the feudalism that prevailed in most places in Europe, that citizenship depended on a social contract, not a bloodline, and that your parentage should not therefore change your citizenship status.
But there was another reason (and here lies an entire critique of the Enlightenment, which is a whole 'nother can of worms), a reason we're not too comfortable with today: empire. The institution of birthright citizenship in France was enacted by France's revolutionary government and ratified by Napoleon's civil code, partly so citizens could be pressed into duty in the army. As France expanded, so did its citizenship rolls, as did its citizen army, as did its military might, all in a virtuous cycle (virtuous, at least, from Napoleon's perspective).
The U.S. enacted birthright citizenship for different reasons, to ensure the citizenship of freed slaves after the Civil War. But the point is that birthright citizenship is historically associated with confidence in the national project, perhaps even supreme confidence.
Oh, and how did it do in France? Well, we got scared of immigrants, so we got rid of birthright citizenship piecemeal over the past few decades.
So here's the other odd thing about the birthright citizenship debate: American conservatives saying they want to be more like France. Kudos!
He looks related to the pajama boy.That passes for a man in france.No wonder they are up shits creek.
All these foreign “experts” are cheering on the destruction of America.
Imagine if such people held high-level gov’t jobs with this kind of ideology and could talk the stupid part of America into believing their lies and deceit.
both parts are wrong
Sorry folks. Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry says we need birth-right citizenship, so I guess that’s case closed.
What really needs to end is Marbury v Madison and the supremes uncontested right to have the last word on constitutional issues.
The 14th amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship; the status of the parents had always determined the jurisdiction of the infant until the supremes ruled otherwise.
We have 3 branches of government but the branch that was supposed to be the strongest, the legislature, is clearly the weakest. We also have a federal government that was supposed to have strictly limited and enumerated powers, wielding unlimited power over all states and individuals.
Article 5 needs to limit terms of justices and have a mechanism whereby the states can overrule the Supreme Court decisions with a majority.
It's not very strange at all except to people like the author. For the benefit of this poor, benighted soul, it's because birthright citizenship was never intended for people to enter the United States illegally and drop an anchor baby.
I understand that children born to foreign diplomats who are stationed here are not automatically conferred U.S. citizenship. I think that goes for attaches and other foreign personnel as well.
OK then, precedence has been established. Treat the illegal’s’ babies in the same manner.
“The American project is so strong, our culture is so strong, our values are so strong, that any baby born on our soil...”
It is hard to conceive of anyone being that stupid, with France and the rest of Europe being disassembled by immigrants. A nation can take in only so many immigrants and still retain its identity. The goal of the immigration policy promoted by Republicans and democrats is to destroy our identity and culture. Most Americans disagree mightily with that, which explains Trump.
Birthright Citizenship is the new cool cliche for Anchor Babies. We are about to see the Marxist Media go both barrels on this term.
Pray America is waking
Canada got rid of their birthright citizenship, making the US the ONLY developed nation to have it.
Mexico’s immigration laws are stricter than the harshest Republican plan, from citizen’s arrest of suspected illegals to visitors getting deported for participating in political rallies to inability of foreigners to own land near the coasts to requiring proof you can support yourself AND you can’t get hired unless they can’t find a Mexican to do it.
Birthright citizenship for illegals may or may not be mandated by the 14th amendment, but it "says" nothing, explicitly or even implicitly.
With emphasis on might.
“The U.S. enacted birthright citizenship for different reasons, to ensure the citizenship of freed slaves after the Civil War. But... (the rest is needless argument and invalid because of the statement above)
“Birthright citizenship says, quite explicitly, “The American project is so strong, our culture is so strong, our values are so strong, that any baby born on our soil, no matter where his parents come from, will ultimately grow up to be a well-adjusted American, so that we don’t need to wait for him to prove himself to extend citizenship.”
Maybe the kid WILL grow up with some “American” values, although the Democrats and liberals will do their best to prevent it. But then, a kid ought to grow up with his parents, and I see no reason to give resident status to someone - and a life of welfare benefits - to someone for having a kid in the USA!
But assuming you ship the parents out, and let them keep their kid - how will he learn “American values” while growing up with his parents in Mexico? Hmmm?
Invasion by pregnancy is still an invasion!
There is a very strong case against illegal birthright citizenship.
The Left keeps misapplying the Ark case, where baby Ark was declared a U.S. citizen at birth, distinguished from the issue at hand because baby Arks parents were in the U.S. LEGALLY. Anything to confuse.
The case more on point is the earlier 1884 Elk v. Wilkins where an indian was denied citizenship at birth becasue his parents were not legal citizens. The Left tries to convolute this too.
The Left and Progressivism operates on confusion and lies.
At one time this was true for most immigrants. It is no longer true today. Immigrants are not assimilating as they have in the past.
Sacre merde.
“anchor babies” is a myth.
I’d like to know what “research” was done. I’ve known thousands of illegals (mostly Mexican). I’ve known hundreds of children of illegals born in the USA. I’ve registered to vote about 150 naturalized citizens. Anchor babies and anchor wives are real. I know school districts where anchor baby shifted from 5% to 60% across dozens of kindergarten classes.
Two of my 3 daughters are anchor babies in that they were born while my wife was an illegal. If we had divorced she would not have needed me as the anchor spouse.
BTW why are people so concerned about the anchor baby and not the anchor spouse? I feel slighted. Am I not important also? :)
But as far as the article is concerned, I’d like to know the “research”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.