The purpose of birthright citizenship is for illegals (not undocumented, illegals, but I would accept invaders as well) to anchor baby their way into the country.
The 14th amendment was passed to give citizenship to the slaves. Not to 150 years later let anyone that hopes the border cheat code their way to citizenship.
Most of the world outside of the Americas doesn’t have birthright citizenship.
We don’t want to “assimilate” these invaders. We want to expel.
If you read my post, you'll see that it explains both of the reasons you're wrong.
Birthright citizenship goes back centuries before immigration was illegal in the first place, and certainly long before anyone knew the term "anchor baby."
The 14th Amendment was passed to overturn Dred Scott and reestablish birthright citizenship for everyone, including the children of immigrants. The people who passed it said so, and chose the words very carefully to ensure it would have that effect. Enfranchising slaves was part of their intent, but not all of it; if they'd wanted to provide citizenship ONLY to the former slaves, they would have written a much narrower amendment.
You're right that most of the world doesn't have birthright citizenship, that just doesn't matter at all to what the law is or should be.
And "we" do want to welcome these people and help them assimilate because we know the effects of their coming are overwhelmingly positive; because we don't fall for nativist fearmongering; and because we don't feel threatened by peaceful people picking our food, building our houses, or delivering our DoorDash. Ask yourself why you do.
I can guarantee that when the 14th amendment was passed the people who did so had absolutely no clue what the world was going to look like in 2025 or what the immigration situation would be.
Obviously the fact that most of the world doesn’t have birthright citizenship shows that it’s not some necessary thing for society. It’s a historical artifact from an era so unlike our own that it has no relevance. If you put birthright citizenship to a vote today it would fail.
These DoorDash drivers are eds and meds sponges that vote for leftists and drive up the cost of housing. Huge detriment to society, would rather pay slightly more for delivery and have way lower taxes and better government in return. Let’s deport them and replace them with a robot or god forbid pick up your own takeout.
The first half of this comment seems like an argument against constitutional rights in general, rather than something specific to birthright citizenship. It's identical to left-leaning arguments against the 2nd amendment, for example, who might say:
"I can guarantee that when the 2nd amendment was passed the people who did so had absolutely no clue what the world was going to look like in 2025 or what the gun crime situation would be. Obviously the fact that most of the world doesn't have a right to bear arms shows that it's not some necessary thing for society. It's a historical artifact from an era so unlike our own that it has no relevance. If you put the 2nd amendment to a vote today it would fail."
In both cases, I'm not sure if the vote would pass or fail on majoritarian lines. Our society is so divided and fickle that it would probably depend on the year or month you asked the question. But in neither case is there anywhere near a strong enough majority (about two-thirds) to pass a constitutional amendment revoking the constitutional right, because the right is popular with enough people in enough states. And personally, I think the fact that we have a Bill of Rights that's hard to change is one of the best things about our country, and that defending those rights is the truest form of patriotism.
If you are worried about big government, you should see advantages to a constitution that limits the size of government in advance. You should see real value to enshrining certain rights as so fundamental that 51% of your neighbors should not get to take them away. And to me, one of those rights should be to the right stay where you were born - where you have lived your whole life, in most cases - with full and equal rights to anyone else who was born there. Whether your parents committed a victimless crime should not affect that right. Whether racist rubes happen to trust your ancestry should not affect it either.
I don't know what "eds and meds sponges" means, but there's no evidence that immigrants' children are more likely to vote for leftists than anyone else. Most Latinos are Catholic and more socially conservative than the median American when they get here, and Trump won 54% of the Latino vote among voters making under $50,000/year, which would include most of the people you're worried about.
Finally, many of the people you want to deport are a crucial part of the construction workforce that's needed to build more homes, which is the real roadblock to lowering housing prices. Deporting them would sharply increase housing costs in the short term. And over the long term, migrants don't increase housing demand by as much as native-born Americans because they are poorer, less likely to buy homes, and more likely to crowd more people into a single apartment. So when JD Vance encourages us to get our birth rates up, that would increase the cost of housing by more than it would to allow in more immigrants.
An overwhelming mountain of research confirms that making everything more expensive and less convenient for the sake of deporting peaceful people who've lived here their whole lives is the real "huge detriment to society."
The 2nd amendment was mostly to prevent tyranny. This view is obsolete in the 21st century, as Biden remarked.
---
“How many have heard this phrase, the blood of liberty washes those… gimme a break,” President Biden said. “No, I mean it. Seriously. And by the way, if they want to think they want to take on government if we get out of line, which they’re talking again about, guess what, they need F-15s. They don’t need a rifle.”
---
I fully believe that the people backing Biden would genocide US citizens from the air if they felt it vital to their core interests.
"you should see real value to enshrining certain rights as so fundamental"
Bro, my rights were so un-fundamental that when we got a bad flu they told me I couldn't leave my house.
Trump lost the Latino vote 51/46. The best showing of a Republican in a long time, but still a landslide loss.
I'm also pretty sure that swing states only because they don't bother doing exit polls in CA/NY because they aren't competitive. 2024 CA exit polls are hard to find by in 2020 CA Latinos voted 75/23 Dem. By contrast CA whites were about 50/50 split as they've been for several election cycles. Immigration made CA a one party Dem shithole.
====
I don't know what "eds and meds sponges" means
Education and Medical, dipshit. You know, a huge portion of our economy and most of the welfare state.
----
"many of the people you want to deport are a crucial part of the construction workforce that's needed to build more homes"
Have you ever built a house? I have. I reviewed the detailed breakdown. Labor costs were a minority of the cost. The real costs are things like land, taxes, commissions, and utility hookup fees. In other words, the costs of pricing out the brown people from living near you and attending your kids schools.
Looks like your post brought some very hateful people out to the comments... either way, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the constitutional arguments as well as those outside that interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Excellent piece, Andrew! I found this incredibly helpful, and convincing. It should be required reading.
Very good piece, well stated. Thanks for this and your other work.
The purpose of birthright citizenship is for illegals (not undocumented, illegals, but I would accept invaders as well) to anchor baby their way into the country.
The 14th amendment was passed to give citizenship to the slaves. Not to 150 years later let anyone that hopes the border cheat code their way to citizenship.
Most of the world outside of the Americas doesn’t have birthright citizenship.
We don’t want to “assimilate” these invaders. We want to expel.
If you read my post, you'll see that it explains both of the reasons you're wrong.
Birthright citizenship goes back centuries before immigration was illegal in the first place, and certainly long before anyone knew the term "anchor baby."
The 14th Amendment was passed to overturn Dred Scott and reestablish birthright citizenship for everyone, including the children of immigrants. The people who passed it said so, and chose the words very carefully to ensure it would have that effect. Enfranchising slaves was part of their intent, but not all of it; if they'd wanted to provide citizenship ONLY to the former slaves, they would have written a much narrower amendment.
You're right that most of the world doesn't have birthright citizenship, that just doesn't matter at all to what the law is or should be.
And "we" do want to welcome these people and help them assimilate because we know the effects of their coming are overwhelmingly positive; because we don't fall for nativist fearmongering; and because we don't feel threatened by peaceful people picking our food, building our houses, or delivering our DoorDash. Ask yourself why you do.
I can guarantee that when the 14th amendment was passed the people who did so had absolutely no clue what the world was going to look like in 2025 or what the immigration situation would be.
Obviously the fact that most of the world doesn’t have birthright citizenship shows that it’s not some necessary thing for society. It’s a historical artifact from an era so unlike our own that it has no relevance. If you put birthright citizenship to a vote today it would fail.
These DoorDash drivers are eds and meds sponges that vote for leftists and drive up the cost of housing. Huge detriment to society, would rather pay slightly more for delivery and have way lower taxes and better government in return. Let’s deport them and replace them with a robot or god forbid pick up your own takeout.
The first half of this comment seems like an argument against constitutional rights in general, rather than something specific to birthright citizenship. It's identical to left-leaning arguments against the 2nd amendment, for example, who might say:
"I can guarantee that when the 2nd amendment was passed the people who did so had absolutely no clue what the world was going to look like in 2025 or what the gun crime situation would be. Obviously the fact that most of the world doesn't have a right to bear arms shows that it's not some necessary thing for society. It's a historical artifact from an era so unlike our own that it has no relevance. If you put the 2nd amendment to a vote today it would fail."
In both cases, I'm not sure if the vote would pass or fail on majoritarian lines. Our society is so divided and fickle that it would probably depend on the year or month you asked the question. But in neither case is there anywhere near a strong enough majority (about two-thirds) to pass a constitutional amendment revoking the constitutional right, because the right is popular with enough people in enough states. And personally, I think the fact that we have a Bill of Rights that's hard to change is one of the best things about our country, and that defending those rights is the truest form of patriotism.
If you are worried about big government, you should see advantages to a constitution that limits the size of government in advance. You should see real value to enshrining certain rights as so fundamental that 51% of your neighbors should not get to take them away. And to me, one of those rights should be to the right stay where you were born - where you have lived your whole life, in most cases - with full and equal rights to anyone else who was born there. Whether your parents committed a victimless crime should not affect that right. Whether racist rubes happen to trust your ancestry should not affect it either.
I don't know what "eds and meds sponges" means, but there's no evidence that immigrants' children are more likely to vote for leftists than anyone else. Most Latinos are Catholic and more socially conservative than the median American when they get here, and Trump won 54% of the Latino vote among voters making under $50,000/year, which would include most of the people you're worried about.
Finally, many of the people you want to deport are a crucial part of the construction workforce that's needed to build more homes, which is the real roadblock to lowering housing prices. Deporting them would sharply increase housing costs in the short term. And over the long term, migrants don't increase housing demand by as much as native-born Americans because they are poorer, less likely to buy homes, and more likely to crowd more people into a single apartment. So when JD Vance encourages us to get our birth rates up, that would increase the cost of housing by more than it would to allow in more immigrants.
An overwhelming mountain of research confirms that making everything more expensive and less convenient for the sake of deporting peaceful people who've lived here their whole lives is the real "huge detriment to society."
The 2nd amendment was mostly to prevent tyranny. This view is obsolete in the 21st century, as Biden remarked.
---
“How many have heard this phrase, the blood of liberty washes those… gimme a break,” President Biden said. “No, I mean it. Seriously. And by the way, if they want to think they want to take on government if we get out of line, which they’re talking again about, guess what, they need F-15s. They don’t need a rifle.”
---
I fully believe that the people backing Biden would genocide US citizens from the air if they felt it vital to their core interests.
"you should see real value to enshrining certain rights as so fundamental"
Bro, my rights were so un-fundamental that when we got a bad flu they told me I couldn't leave my house.
Trump lost the Latino vote 51/46. The best showing of a Republican in a long time, but still a landslide loss.
I'm also pretty sure that swing states only because they don't bother doing exit polls in CA/NY because they aren't competitive. 2024 CA exit polls are hard to find by in 2020 CA Latinos voted 75/23 Dem. By contrast CA whites were about 50/50 split as they've been for several election cycles. Immigration made CA a one party Dem shithole.
====
I don't know what "eds and meds sponges" means
Education and Medical, dipshit. You know, a huge portion of our economy and most of the welfare state.
----
"many of the people you want to deport are a crucial part of the construction workforce that's needed to build more homes"
Have you ever built a house? I have. I reviewed the detailed breakdown. Labor costs were a minority of the cost. The real costs are things like land, taxes, commissions, and utility hookup fees. In other words, the costs of pricing out the brown people from living near you and attending your kids schools.
Looks like your post brought some very hateful people out to the comments... either way, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the constitutional arguments as well as those outside that interpretation of the 14th amendment.