Dear Internet, As NRO says, Trump's critics are wrong about the issue of birthright citizenship and...
Dear Internet,
As NRO says, Trump's critics are wrong about the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
That said, Trump is also wrong, because this is a losing issue. No one cares what Senator Howard wrote in 1866. Not even conservative justices on the Supreme Court care, except for maybe Clarence Thomas. We already learned this when the majority in McDonald v. Chicago found that the Second Amendment applied to the states via "selective incorporation," even though Senator Howard wrote 150 years ago that the Second Amendment would apply to the states via the privileges and immunities clause.
Only Thomas cared about the original intent of the 14th Amendment in that case.
Now, because birthright citizenship for nonresident or illegal aliens etc. has never been tested in the Supreme Court, that's a big difference between McDonald and this issue. And it is true that the Court could establish that "birthright citizenship" is limited.
But it's also true that there's no reason to test it. The number of citizens added to this country as "anchor babies" is tiny compared to the overall immigration problem, and probably end up being productive citizens more often than they end up as drains on the system.
As a political issue, maybe this has importance, but eliminating birthright citizenship will not improve a single American life in any way (except for the lawyers and pundits who are paid to talk about it, or the politicians elected on the back of it).
As NRO says, Trump's critics are wrong about the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
That said, Trump is also wrong, because this is a losing issue. No one cares what Senator Howard wrote in 1866. Not even conservative justices on the Supreme Court care, except for maybe Clarence Thomas. We already learned this when the majority in McDonald v. Chicago found that the Second Amendment applied to the states via "selective incorporation," even though Senator Howard wrote 150 years ago that the Second Amendment would apply to the states via the privileges and immunities clause.
Only Thomas cared about the original intent of the 14th Amendment in that case.
Now, because birthright citizenship for nonresident or illegal aliens etc. has never been tested in the Supreme Court, that's a big difference between McDonald and this issue. And it is true that the Court could establish that "birthright citizenship" is limited.
But it's also true that there's no reason to test it. The number of citizens added to this country as "anchor babies" is tiny compared to the overall immigration problem, and probably end up being productive citizens more often than they end up as drains on the system.
As a political issue, maybe this has importance, but eliminating birthright citizenship will not improve a single American life in any way (except for the lawyers and pundits who are paid to talk about it, or the politicians elected on the back of it).
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment