In recent weeks, Donald Trump has put forward the notion that anchor babies, the children born within the United States to illegal alien parents, are not themselves citizens and as such , can be deported along with their parents. Many across the political spectrum, from Hillary Clinton, have not only disagreed with Trump, but have gone so far as to accuse him of attempting to alter or abolish the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights to all U.S. citizens. We should expect this from the likes of Hillary Clinton, who would lie about what day of the week it is and may soon be under indictment following the current FBI investigation of her email improprieties. However, the accusation is coming from some republicans as well.
This past August, attorney David Rivikin, an official in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, himself an immigrant from Russia, wrote in the Los Angeles Times, that the “issue of birthright citizenship has been settled”. Rivikin makes the argument that, “Under (the 14 Amendment’s) text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is a U.S. citizen.”
However, this position calls deeply into question the credibility of Rivikin as a constitutional scholar, especially in light of the fact that Rivikin is a member of the international advisory group, the Council on Foreign Relations, which gathers together to advise on world-wide policy. If Rivikin’s ability to interpret legal policy is that deeply flawed, one wonders what other basic errors he may be making with international rules-making.
According to United States Immigrant Services, “A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” This clearly demonstrates that some babies born within the United States are definitively NOT born as U.S. citizens. In fact, American Indians were only granted citizenship by Congressional action in 1924, and some tribes still reject it today.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court backs this idea up rather thoroughly in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Rivikin attempts to make the point that in the (1898) case U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, that the Court concluded, “the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” However, that case only applies to legal immigrants, and those entering or residing here illegally are still very much subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power, as Immigration puts it, and therefore, their children are in no way U.S. citizens, even now.
Curiously, Rivikin is much less likely to be ignorant of these facts then he is to be purposefully lying about them to embarrass Trump. The demonstration of this is where he points out the idea that a British legal scholar in the 19th Century, William Blackstone, famously said, “The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."
The issue here is that as any first-year law student could tell you, legally speaking, words are very specific and what the esteemed Blackstone was speaking about was that the children of aliens would be Subjects of the British Crown, and NOT citizens and entitled to granted privileges and NOT rights enjoyed by those citizens. Rivikin, being a well-experienced attorney, would be well aware of Blackstone’s meaning and to present such a point as granting citizenship rights to anchor babies would be nearly a gross malpractice.
In conclusion, despite what you may have heard, Donald Trump is in no way trying to amend the Constitution nor abolish any part of it. The people who are saying so are either ignorant of the meaning of the law, or willfully lying about it. Many of these people, like David Rivikin, may be supportive of other candidates running against Donald Trump in the primary process, despite a claim of being republican. Trump, contrarily, is pointing out the very serious challenge of having 400,000 foreign babies born each year, who owe little allegiance to the United States, but who would enjoy full rights of citizenship under current policy, including anchoring their parents and shielding them from deportation.
Trump actually pulled off a masterstroke move in signing the recent GOP loyalty pledge, as all candidates now critical of his campaign and personal style will also be forced to support Trump should he ultimately win the nomination. As Trump himself has said, when asked by the press why many fellow republicans would offer sharp criticism of him, Trump noted, “They are running against me, after all.”
No comments:
Post a Comment