Bulgarians, Pakistanis, Filipinos and a Token "American"
Three Bulgarians, three Filipinos, a Pakistani and a token American were sitting at a dinner table. Were they having a good time? Absolutely. This isn't the start of some good joke.
Last year, our daughter's first year of college, we had hoped to visit her more often than we did. We did a couple times, mostly on our way to and from someplace other than that town but mostly she came home. As a result, some friends of ours who moved to that town six years ago and whom we said we would visit more often now that our daughter was attending college there, didn't get seen at all. So this past holiday weekend, we decided to rectify that before another year goes by.
The Bulgarians, husband, wife and son who is now a senior in school, are actually U.S. Citizens now. Since we last saw them, they finished the last step of the process and were sworn in two years ago. Their son was born in Baltimore before either were citizens but by the interpretation of our Constitution, he has always been a U.S. citizen. That is up for review by our Supreme Court the last time I read anything about it. There are only a few countries that offer citizenship via the principle of jus soli or right of soil, meaning that if they are on U.S. soil when born, they are a citizen. One country, the United Kingdom has changed from this method in recent years so there is a trend to reverse this as the world becomes more crowded and resources dwindle. There are more countries that practice jus sanguinis means by blood and usually means that you must have parents or ancestors from that country to automatically become a citizen. Most countries in the world don't offer such guarantees to the newborn.
The Pakistani was a freshman in college and also a child born in America to non-citizen parents. Her parents weren't there at the meal but are good friends with my wife and the Bulgarians. I don't know if they are citizens now or not but as long as they have been in our country, I would suspect the answer is yes. My eldest daughter, who was born when I was a U.S. Citizen but not her mother, was part of what I am referring to as the Filipino contingent and our hope was to make a connection with the Pakistani girl. That turned out to be a great success and after we dropped them back off at the dorms, my daughter took the Pakistani girl out in search of some halal foods which she is having difficulty finding in the dorm cafeteria. Hopefully they can sort all that out.
I of course was the token "American", in quotations since I was the only one whose parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of my birth. It made me ponder a bit about birthright citizenship. From our 14th Amendment, section 1:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm not a legal scholar by any means but I think the debate of the recent months/years center around the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It has broadly been defined as relating to foreign diplomats and the attempt it to narrow is by applying a more specific definition. I assume sometime in the coming weeks/months, we will know the outcome one way or another.
Me personally, I see some wisdom in making the definition be a bit more restrictive. The vast majority of the countries in the world are way more restrictive than us and I assume for some very good reasons. As far as I know, there is no cottage birthing industries in any other country but ours, mostly because it isn't allowed like we do. Just because one was born on our soil and then the parents left with child never to return, seems like a stretch that they should enjoy all the privileges of citizenship at any point in the future should the child return. The main argument for this is that we are a land of plenty and wealth and can afford to take everyone. While I think this is debatable given some of the problems we suffered during our recent Covid pandemic, even if it were true now, how long will it remain true in the future?
I would argue that the son of two non-citizen Bulgarians (at time of birth) and that the daughter of two non-citizen Pakistanis (assumption for the sake of argument), are both worthy citizens that anyone who knows them would be happy that they are citizens of our great country and have been since their birth. I hope if the interpretation is narrowed to the point that their citizenship was no longer valid, that we grandfather those presently in that situation in as citizens and just start fresh.
Grandfathering would be the way to go imo.
ReplyDeleteFor me anyway, grandfathering AND better control of our borders. By the latter, I mean better control of who crosses, faster methods for processing new immigrants and more immigration judges etc. to process those immigrating in a timely manner.
DeleteEd, like any system, it was originally started for good reasons and with the best of intentions. The fact that there is now an industry to circumvent the intent suggests it should perhaps be revisited. What that would look like, I have no real idea - other than, given the implications, it will probably satisfy no-one at all.
ReplyDeleteSo many seem to make it all about a single issue. Border walls for one side, unfettered access for the other. I think the only way to solve it is to have a package of sensible reforms from tighter border control to more immigration officers to process applications.
DeleteI agree with John although I don't have a problem with the Constitution as it's written on the matter. It's sad how the word "immigrant" has become a pejorative, and hypocritical for so many in our current admin who profited from those same laws. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteI guess since I live in a community with a high concentration of immigrants, I don't see the bias against immigrants like perhaps others. I know many, including some here illegally, and I have found all to be decent folks who strive to fit into our culture and make a better life for themselves here. I don't see the murder, rapists and drug dealers the far right points out. But I also see the problems our small community has with our immigrant population from lack of affordable housing, lack of quality medical care, to other poverty related issues. If we don't control the influx into something sustainable, I don't see much good coming out of it for us long term established immigrants or those who are recent immigrants.
DeleteIt's always different when you know the people involved. The problem is, almost all the future infants to be affected by any change in interpretation of that law will no doubt be just as worthy. So why should they be denied? I think America has to get more comfortable with the idea of its population and culture changing, because it's going to happen no matter what. Change is the only constant.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they are likely worthy, my only concern is that if we can't properly care for them, are we doing them a disservice by making it too easy to bypass the system? In our community illegal immigrants are dying from health problems that normal citizens would treat using our healthcare system but they can only get treated at the free clinic if they get their early enough on the one day a week they provide care. It typically fills up for the day within an hour of opening. We have around 8% of our local public school children that are functionally homeless, most of them immigrants or children of recent immigrants because our community doesn't have enough affordable housing. This is happening right now! I can't imagine what it will look like a decade from now if we continue on the path we were on for the last decade or more. I'm all for immigration. I just would like it in a controlled sustainable manner. Politicians and the media are good at focus on the larger picture but down here in the trenches, it can be a very scary situation unless you are a well healed immigrant.
DeleteHere in Hawaii it is a bit different in the sense of being Hawaiian. Regardless of where you are born, you are Hawaiian by ancestry. Of course, that is true of any ethnic background but here, it is different. Hard to explain because the islands are unique in having been its own country until the USA under President McKinley "took" it unconstitutionally from its monarchy because of pressure from bleep bleep haoles.
ReplyDeleteDuring my week long stay in Hawaii a few years ago, I got some sense of that. I describe it as similar to what we have in my neck of the woods. You know who is local and who isn't. But it is much stronger in Hawaii as the borders are much more defined and it is much more difficult to cross that border either leaving or coming.
DeleteI don't guess I knew we were one of the only countries that allowed this.
ReplyDeleteYes, the media doesn't do much deep dives into subjects anymore. They rarely go beyond just presenting what each political camp is saying.
DeleteOur countries have a large percentage of the population who have citizen ship through other ways than parents and being born here. How many can we throw out before we need them.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Canada's birth citizenship is just like the United States, by jus soli if born there and jus sanguinis if born abroad, but we are in a minority of the world's countries.
DeleteHow many can we throw out before we need them? I would also ask: How many can we keep if keeping them results in extreme hardship for them and for the current citizens? Somewhere there is a balance and I think we need to find it.