I seldom use facebook, next to never post on facebook, and as far as I recall have never commented on a political post in my life.  But I’m feeling pretty bored and haven’t inserted myself in a debate for a time so I’m going to have at it.

@Isaac Schick First of all, you write that no other developed countries but the United States and Canada have birthright citizenship.  I’d like to delve a bit deeper into that.  Your statement is correct.  As far as I know, 35 countries adhere to Jus soli (right of soil / birthright citizenship) and Canada and the United States are the only ones that don’t classify as developing countries due to their Human Development Index scores.  Technically, some political theorists and economists argue that Mexico no longer classifies as a developing country, and Argentina rates vastly higher on the HDI than most developing countries, but there’s no sense getting caught up in semantics there.  The vast majority of countries in North and South America use Jus soli.  Furthermore, many other countries have restricted Jus soli, which can mean a multitude of different things.  Perhaps the country that's nationality laws will best prove my point is Australia, a developed country, where citizenship is not granted at birth but is granted if you live the first ten years of your life on Australian soil - regardless of your parents citizenship status.  Again, your statement was technically correct but I just felt the way you phrased it seemed skewed so as to not note that the United States aren’t a huge anomaly in their use of Jus soli.

But more importantly, you wrote that birthright citizenship is not protected by the constitution.  The 14th amendment to the constitution states that “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.”  As explained in United States v. Wong Kim Ark the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" specifically excludes children born to foreign diplomats (including ambassadors, as you pointed out) and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.  You write that the 14th amendment was “all about repealing Dred Scott.”  While there is no doubt that was a crucial reason for its writing, it doesn’t say “all slaves 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.”  It says all persons, and it has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court that it indeed means all persons, with the exceptions previously written.  To throw a slight bit of shade here (in good fun) it’s usually the case that conservatives such as yourself like to look more heavily at the text of the constitution whereas more liberal justices look deeper into consequence and purpose.  (Not saying you can’t express views outside your party lines, was just pointing out what is traditionally seen among Justices.)

Another thing to note in the phrasing of the amendment is that Jus soli was seen far more widely around the globe in 1868 than it is today, with much of Europe adhering to that policy.  That started with France right after the French revolution, and was widely popularized in multiple European nations until it started to get slowly repealed in the 1900s, ending with Ireland being the last European nation to repeal Jus soli in 2004.  So given the knowledge that Jus soli was common worldwide, it seems intentional that the language included all persons (including slaves) instead of being geared towards only slaves.

Furthermore, you mention Plessy v. Ferguson.  This case was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education and is no longer law.  It seems your only point in bringing it up is to note that the Supreme Court has at times made deeply shameful, immoral, and illogical decisions.  This is true, but it doesn’t at all relate to your argument that Birthright Citizenship is not protected by the constitution.  Additionally, it seems like a bit of a stretch to imply that because the Supreme Court has made a widely criticized, shameful, and currently null decision that all Supreme Court rulings hold less weight.  I simply fail to see the gravitas in your comeback to @Andrew Dale’s statement that the precedent set in Wong Kim Ark diminishes your claim of a lack of constitutional protection for birthright citizenship.  Admittedly, many of the Justices who decided Wong Kim Ark also decided Plessy so you could argue a general lack of logic within the Court that surpasses the one atrocious decision, but honestly that seems a fallacious and rather pointless argument to make, one which would be loaded with the implication that every case decided under those Justices needs to be reexamined.

You say you can make an argument either way on whether or not birthright citizenship is embedded in our constitution, but you cannot.  The language of the Amendment is quite clear for the most part, and any confusion regarding the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was clarified in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  Regardless of if you support the logic of the case or the Court itself, it is unequivocally law as determined by the constitution.  The President cannot amend or reinterpret the constitution through an executive order.  That is the job of Congress (in the case of amending) or the Courts (in the case of reinterpretation.)

I read farther down to see that you actually conceded to Dale in one of your comments I glossed over that birthright citizenship is law.  So I suppose this part of my argument is actually invalid, and I just wasted a fair amount of time writing it out.  But regardless, now that we’ve established that there is no lack of constitutional protection for birthright citizenship we can tackle your claim that getting rid of birthright citizenship is a “damn good idea.”

Regardless of if you think birthright citizenship is wrong, or even dangerous, it is more dangerous for a sitting President to make boisterous claims that the constitutionally protected rights of an individual can be deemed null and void through a simple executive order.  Regardless of if the intent is a cunning political scheme to get the issue reexamined in a Court of Law, it is extremely troubling to hear that claim for millions of Americans whose civil rights are protected only through the writings of the constitution.  Claiming you have that kind of power (again, regardless of if it is or isn’t a brilliant political move) goes against core American values including but not limited to the separation of powers so importantly instilled in our society.

So I suppose now I’m going to delve in to what is more of an ideological difference rather than an assertion of fact, which is always more difficult (and more interesting) to debate.  Often, human beings (on all points of the political spectrum) naturally close off when they feel their core beliefs are under siege, but I’d be honored if you’d read through my points with an open mind as I feel you’re fundamentally mistaken on a multitude of your points and I’d appreciate some clarification.



I’m going to evolve into my main argument that your proclaimed desires to see the continuation of the “American experiment” and to see America stray from being an ethnostate are actually threatened by your reasons for wanting to discontinue birthright citizenship.  I should specify that this argument is centered around your self proclaimed reasons for wanting to discontinue birthright citizenship, not around all the possible reasons to do so.  I will in time get to that, but to begin I want to confront your claim that “America is unique amongst nation-states as being a country founded on ideas not some ethno-culture.”  The belief that America was founded solely to uphold abstract ideas and is not grounded in a culture is widely held, and deeply flawed.  I would highly recommend reading “Who Are We?” by Samuel Huntington.  It builds a tight knit argument that America’s founding ideas and American identity itself stems from the Founding Fathers (and indeed the nations) Anglo-Protestant identity.  I also want to take a brief digression to note that I don’t agree with everything Huntington wrote, and I certainly don’t endorse a lot of his viewpoints.

 Anyways, Huntington actually argues that this is a good thing, and makes a lot of very interesting points about identity in nationhood that I think you’ll find ring true to you.  Huntington claims it was Anglo-Protestant British culture that placed a premium on liberty and representative democracy and it was born from their culture, not any unique ideas.  It is also where the idea that hard work brings rewards was born - the basis for meritocracy.  You seem to almost concede that these ideas coincide with culture by mentioning upholding the beliefs of three prominent thinkers, two of which were Englishmen and one of which was a Scotsman.  It’s a small but important distinction that our country was founded on an Anglo-Protestant and largely British identity with a focus on ideas formulated and discussed among those circles moreso than simply being founded solely on the prospect of great and new ideas.  If our country was founded by French colonists, I’d strongly argue we’d see a very different America today.

I don’t mean to minimize our Founding Fathers focus on and love for ideas, but these ideas aren’t the basis for them wanting to secede from the Crown.  No, the Founding Fathers felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen, and that is the basis for our country, not some sudden overnight desire to create a country of equal opportunity and freedom.  And to say that the United States of America was the first country in the history of the planet whose founders put extra focus into ideas is untrue.  Again, I’m not saying there is nothing special or unique about our country and its founding.  I love my country and I’m proud to be a citizen of it, but it’s also ahistorical to say our country was founded off nothing more than ideas.

Perhaps my point can be best supported by John Jay.  In Federalist No. 2 he writes,  “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.”  Now to me, that sounds like a paper outlining an ethno-state that values Liberty and Independence more than a country that is solely founded off nothing more than the ideals of Liberty and Independence.

I feel the need to write another brief digression here to again unequivocally profess that I feel patriotic to my country.  I’m going to school to learn its laws and I fully intend to begin a career enforcing them - admittedly starting with local laws but possibly one day on a federal level.  And part of my pride in my country comes from seeing an open discourse of ideas, a focus on this “American experiment” you mention, and a country that often puts ideas over ethno-nationalistic ideology.  The key word there being often, not always.  And in the founding of our country, these ideas were discussed and at times embodied but they were not the sole basis for secession from the Crown.  To quote Scott Greer “the fact is that America, while exceptional in its accomplishments and character, is not so different from other nations. It is based on an identity — one shaped by a shared culture, history and language among its citizens.”  But enough about a history lesson, let’s delve into your idealistic version of America, one that strays from being an ethnostate and instead embodies “American values.”

    You write that, “You aren't an American because you were born on American soil, you're an American because you have accepted certain values like freedom of religion, speech, the American Dream, and have put in the effort to go through the immigration system as well as attempting to learn English (and for these reasons I'm actually pro-DACA since most DACA recipients are fairly well assimilated). It's civics that make an American.”  First of all, the very fact that you mention assimilation here is an argument against your claim that America is simply based on ideas rather than some fundamental culture.  Assimilation is such an arduous task because it requires new arrivals to absorb the culture of Anglo-Protestantism, if assimilation only required you to believe in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech and the American dream (often synonymous with meritocracy) then half the world would be American overnight which is the point I think Dale was trying to make.

    And now for the closer.  You argue that you want to uphold American ideals and that if “we lose our values as espoused by such thinkers as Adam Smith, John Locke and John Stewart Mills, then we stop being the ‘American’ experiment and become something else.”  You seem to connect losing these values with becoming an ethnostate.  And my argument is that the things you’re promoting are actually what you’d expect to see in an ethnostate.  Think about it.  You write that part of being an American involves attempting to learn English, yet one of the central themes of ethno-nationalism is that nations share a common language.  A theme of ethno-culture is that outsiders are commonly seen as diluters.  This usually translates into policy that either tries to keep outsiders away to begin with, or tries to assimilate them into the dominant group until they lose what makes their culture unique.  You want DACA recipients to stay because they are already assimilated into the dominant culture.  Personally, I think the American experiment you speak so highly of is a beautiful thing that brings together people of all different cultures and backgrounds and allows them to keep and maintain what makes them unique while in the backdrop of a collaborative society.  You seem to be arguing that it should consist of trying to make everyone more similar instead of embracing our differences.  Now you claim to be opposed to ethno states yet the policy you promote seems preposterously backwards for somebody who doesn’t want to see the United State as an ethno state, keeping in mind that many ethno states do allow in ‘outsiders’ so long as they can properly be assimilated into the dominant group.  So it’s possible you simply didn’t have a solid understanding of ethno-nationalism, but for somebody who claims to be against it your reasonings for wanting to do away with birthright citizenship seem to directly support it.  It’s your policy that would stop us from being the American experiment and become something else, that something else being the very thing you claim to fear, an ethnostate.
    Can you see where I’m a little confused?