Birthright Citizenship: Is It Automatic For Everyone? by Robert Socha

People from every nation covet citizenship in these United States. Teeming masses clamor across some of the harshest landscapes in the world to gain access to our liberties. Many of them have babies while on United States soil. Are these babies citizens? Are the parents afforded the same rights and immunities as born or naturalized citizens? The debate has raged through the halls of Congress and the courts to this day.

Segue: If a native Norwegian couple came to Pennsylvania to obtain a degree in business from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and had a baby born in Pennsylvania while obtaining their degrees, would that pale child be considered a citizen of the United States? Would the same people beating the drum for birthright citizenship fight to keep this Norwegian child protected? Would that child dream?

Upon preliminary reading, the language of the first clause of the 14th Amendment appears unambiguous:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Amendment intended to give citizenship to the newly emancipated slaves, a necessary change. I wonder, though, if illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the states. Had the thought of such gross disrespect of the Nation’s borders been entertained in the debate leading up to the 14th Amendment’s ratification? For example, they are subject in the sense that they can be convicted of a misdemeanor if the authorities catch them after crossing illegally under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, while subsequent offenses can escalate to felony convictions and extensive jail time, depending on the severity of the offender’s history. At the end of Article One, the equal protection clause enforces the state’s ability to convict a person for improper entry. That clause reads: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Again, the phrase, “any person,” appears unambiguous and has been argued to defend the rights of those who flout these United States laws and integrity. It is very curious to me the argument that visitors to this great nation receive the same rights and immunities as born or naturalized citizens. If that is true, then what is the value of citizenship? Why become naturalized? Visitors have no right to be here, just as I have no right to travel abroad; it is a privilege, and visiting offenders should be deported if they have transgressed the law.

Segue: And why doesn’t the clause “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” not protect the life of a child in the womb whose natural state is to be born alive when the mother’s time has come?

My opinion on the matter suggests that the intense fight to defend people who have flouted the legal process for entry into these United States is to ensure the Left has an ever-refreshing stream of voters to keep their base secure. The same is true for the babies born while on United States’ soil. They care no more about the plight of the scarred souls except the 15-second clip to appear virtuous.

It is worth noting this great country’s generosity, assigning value to humanity. Never before have the lowly and churning masses yearning to be free been afforded such a great opportunity. The plight of these teeming caravans tears the heartstrings and demands compassion. The compassionate response is to inform them that we are a nation of laws and those laws must be respected. Suppose one cannot respect the country’s laws upon entry. In that case, the nation they wish to adopt cannot trust them to respect the laws moving forward, and they must, by force if necessary, be removed so the nation’s integrity remains uncompromised and the following hordes yearning to be free are convinced to yield to the legal process.