Whose birthright?
Tuesday’s SCOTUS decision solidified a policy that has been in effect for 100 years: the automatic granting of citizenship to anyone born on US soil, no matter their parents’ citizenship status. Academic quibbling over the true meaning of the 14th Amendment and “birthright citizenship” has led to a fork in the road for this nation. What was meant as an assurance that the newly freed slaves and their children would be guaranteed citizensship, has now been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean that potentially every child in the world could be a US citizen, provided their mother makes it onto US territory to give birth. No sane person could believe this to be a good-faith interpretation. If this had been the true meaning of the 14th Amendment in 1868, it’s authors would have been ridiculed and quite possible beaten, for attempting to hold a vote on such a suicidal policy.
The question really becomes, do we exist to serve the Constitution, or does the Constitution exist to serve us? How long can a nation with birthright citizenship survive without transforming into something utterly alien to what the Founders intended? Whose birthright should matter? American newborns, born to American citizens whose parents were also American citizens, seem to be left out of this equation. What of their birthright to a stable and secure nation, with employment, prosperity, and a government who prioritizes their needs awaiting them? We’ve sold them out.
What could possibly be the outcome of such an interpretation of the 14th, which incentivizes human trafficking from the most unstable, poverty-stricken corners of the globe? Consequences, particularly ones so far-reaching, should be taken into account before making such decisions. Is a nation really a nation when birthright citizenship has been enshrined as law by our highest court?
Does our system of law exist to serve citizens, or the world? There is no middle ground.
