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!
It does not.
I’m not crazy about France or ‘Frenchmen’, but it’s a pretty safe bet that several million of them would not chance American culture too much (other than complaining about everything and having to explain to their babes that some beaches still require tops).
But that is NOT the issue here. The people taking advantage of our Open Borders polices consist of two types: Those from south of the border, and those that approve of 9/11.
For a complete list of sources used in the development of this list, click here: Notes and Citations Regarding Birthright Citizenship Laws. Much of the information comes from the websites of the individual countries or the United Nations.
|
DEVELOPED NATIONS*
|
OTHER NATIONS
|
Because we don’t already have enough foreigners scamming us for free stuff.
/s
Your kids are not anchor babies if you are a US citizen and your wife is or was an illegal.
America need a pain in the ass like America need birthright citizenship. You want to play the system you really don’t want to be a real American.
If you are correct that is an excellent point. Thank you!!!
not only does he have zero credibility on the issue, but France has insanely let in over 5 million Islamics....
who are busy attacking French citizens and burning cars down and all sorts of troubles
there is only one large group of people on planet earth who are trained from birth to hate Christians and Jews (and America and Europe, being countries full of Christians and Jews). These people are also instructed to infiltrate, lie as much as necessary, take over and subjugate the infidels (whether Christians, Jews, or otherwise).
Guess which one large group of people this is?
Yup, it is the very group that the French ruling elite has been let move into France BY THE MILLIONS
sorry, French friends ...but USA can’t save you from your committing suicide
No, we don't, Grubby.
Find out what birthright citizenship is, before engaging mouth.
Birthright citizenship should be both transparent and totally uncontroversial.
Your understanding of it is ignorant... as in not totally informed about the process and the history of the term.
Another clueless Frenchman. He ought to look at the myriad of French problems and try to solve them rather than opining on U.S. issues.
I like how when I’m dragged to court, I’m told that #1) I’m responsible for knowing the law and #2) I’m responsible for understanding that law.
And when politicians and talking heads don’t know the law, well it’s all interpretive. :)
It’s worse than anchor babies. Here in Oklahoma, pregnant illegals get prenatal care since the baby is going to be a citizen once it’s born.
Perhaps he will do that the same way as many legal immigrants do?
Except for the inconvenient fact that unviable masses can't be citizens.
Who knows? In the near future it could be dog food...
.. if Planned "Parenthood" can manage it.
Needless to say the author holds Indians (then), Native Americans (now) in contempt, as evidenced by his unfounded assertation that the 14th was a function of confidence in anyone born here.
As to 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 , the heck with Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me . Just get here and have a baby, stay away from Planned Parenthood.
Nonsense. We absolutely do not need birthright citizenship. I was told (I did not see it myself) that today Bill O’Reilly raved for the need for birthright citizenship and that the far left and Conservatives all agree on this. I wish he would have M. Levin on his show to tell him how wrong he is.
A Trojan Horse of sorts.
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.