“Birthright Citizenship” (A.K.A. Jus Soli) And The Cheating Of America

You know
it`s the dog days of summer when the MainStream Media permit
debate on a sophisticated policy issue deeply affecting
America`s future. In this case, it`s cheaters

misappropriating the legal privileges of being an American.

What is commonly called
“Birthright citizenship” is a legal loophole that has been discussed
among patriotic immigration reformers for many years. But,
given the extreme

parochialism
of our political elite, maybe the first
time

Senator Lindsey Graham
 (Scalawag-SC)

heard
of the issue really was independent-minded
reporter Keith B. Richburg`s July 18, 2010
Washington Post
article

For many pregnant Chinese, a U.S. passport remains a
powerful lure
.

(See also


Turkish “Birth Tourism” And Its Entrepreneurial American
Enablers
,

Turkish Birth Tourism In New York
,
and


Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship,

all on VDARE.com.)

Richburg
described a Shanghai partnership that has charged 500 to 600
Chinese women $14,750 each to have their children born on
American soil so they can later reap the benefits of being
an American. Richburg observed:


“There are no solid figures, but dozens of firms advertise
`birth tourism` packages online, many of them based in

Shanghai
, and Zhao said the number has soared in the
past five years.”

As

Michael Kinsley
liked to

say
, the real scandal is not what`s illegal,

it`s what`s legal.
Richburg went on:

“U.S. officials
confirm that it is not a crime to travel to the United
States to give birth so that the child can have U.S.
citizenship. `You don`t deny someone because you know
they`re going to the U.S. to have children,` said a U.S.
Embassy spokesman in Beijing,

Richburg
wrote:

“Zhou and Chao
insist that everything they do is legal, noting that the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868,
says anyone born on U.S. soil has the right to citizenship.
`We don`t encourage moms to break the law — just to take
advantage of it,` Zhou said.”

Richburg is an African-American, the
author of the brave book Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa.
I suspect he feels (quite correctly) that the 14th Amendment
was passed in 1868 to overturn the
Dred Scott
decision and guarantee citizenship to his ancestors and
their posterity, e.g., Keith Richburg—not to bestow the
blessings of American nationality on foreign con artists.
Thus Richburg noted:

“Some
argue that the 14th Amendment—aimed
at guaranteeing citizenship rights to freed black slaves
—was
never meant to provide an instant passport to the children
of people who are in the country illegally or who travel
there expressly to gain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

Now, you knew and I knew that the current
interpretation
that
anybody born here gets American citizenship
(no matter
what other country they pledge allegiance to) is a scandal.
But the MSM has seldom called attention to this long-running
abuse.

For
example, Richburg reported that Chinese taxpayers are
getting increasingly enthusiastic about having their
offspring fleece American taxpayers:

“In
their pitch to prospective clients, Zhou and Chao point out
that as a U.S. citizen, a

child has access to free public education
from primary
school through high school and that a full education in the
United States can be
much
cheaper
than at the top Chinese private schools and
universities.”

Something Richburg failed to mention,
however, is that abuse of the current American citizenship
regulations permits bizarrely self-recursive forms of chain
migration. For example, the
Chinese
scion born on American soil can eventually grow up to import
his own parents as immigrants under our

“family
reunification” law
.
They, in turn,
can bring in their own parents
and plunk them in public
housing for seniors and put their health care on Medicare`s
tab. It`s like a

Confucian
conman version of that old

Robert Heinlein
science fiction story,

All
You Zombies
, about a man with a time machine who
turns out to be

his own grandpa.

The effect of the
“Birthright
Citizenship”
loophole is immense. The Pew Hispanic
Center issued a report on August 11, 2010,



Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children
, stating that illegal aliens` progeny comprised
eight percent of all births in the U.S. in 2008. The way to put that
into perspective is to think of it as a percentage of the
entire population of 310 million. Thus, illegals in the US
are having the same number of children as a group of 25
million Americans

Of
course, the full effect is even worse than that because
these immigrants are making the population grow beyond their
own numbers. People cheat to get into the U.S. to
have
more children
than they could afford to have in their
own countries—far more than the replacement rate. The Pew
Hispanic Center says:

“Data limitations do
not allow for an analysis in this report comparing the
fertility rates of the unauthorized with those of legal
immigrants. However, the fertility patterns of other
demographic groups are instructive. Overall, Hispanics who
live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do
whites, blacks or Asians. And among Hispanics, the foreign
born have higher rates of fertility than the native born
(3.1 versus 2.3).”

And that
likely understates the offspring-per-lifetime birthrate of
illegal aliens. In contrast to the Pew number, demographer
Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California
pointed out in 2007 in

Birth Rates in California
:


“Fertility rates are higher in California than in any
developed country in the world. This is partly due to the
composition of the state`s population, which includes large
numbers of foreign-born women, who tend to have more
children than U.S.-born women. Thus, in addition to its
direct contribution to state growth, migration also plays an
important indirect role in its effect on
fertility rates.
Among foreign-born Latinas, total fertility rates—a measure
of completed family size—average 3.7 children per woman. In
contrast, the state`s lowest fertility rates are among
U.S.-born Asians, who have an average of 1.4 children per
woman.”

The low fertility rates for American-born
women in California reflect in part the
high
cost of family formation
(such as
housing in
an exclusive school district or private schooling
) in a
state crowded with illegal immigrants and their descendants.

And if the illegals were to get amnesty,
their birthrate would go through the roof again—as it did
after the 1986 amnesty, when the total fertility rate for
foreign-born Latinas in California shot up from 3.2 in 1987
to an amazing 4.4
in 1991
.

The cost
of building hundreds of public schools for this Amnesty Baby
Boom (and, now,

their kids)
has been a key, if unmentioned, factor in
the
breaking of California`s budget
. John Seiler reported
last week that, when capital costs are included, the
Los
Angeles Unified School District
spends almost

$30,000
per student per year. [LAUSD
spends $30K per student
, CalWatchDog.com, August 20,
2010] For example, converting the old

Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard
into a school is
costing
$578,000,000
.

These are not, however, the sort of thing
you are supposed to think about. Because when you
do think about how
you are being cheated, you don`t like it. Human beings don`t
like being taken advantage of. We understand, deep down,
that rewarding the dishonest just increases dishonesty.

The Democratic Party is devoted to the
current iniquitous system for one simple reason: it

generates more Democrats.
In other words, private
cheating helps Democrats win in public. It is crucial to
point this out whenever discussing the issue. No matter how
much they swaddle themselves in their self-anointed
righteousness, Democrats do not have a principled stance on
this question—just a

self-interest
in seeing deviousness thrive.


Democrats can`t win a rational debate by defending the
current system. It`s indefensible. You`ll notice that many
of the more logical liberals, such as

Kevin Drum
and

Matthew Yglesias
, simply try to dismiss the entire
subject out of hand: Why are Republicans even bothering to
bring that up?
They shouldn`t waste their precious political capital on
that
!

The only way Democrats can win on this is
through obscurantism,

soft-headed sentimental rhetoric,
and

character assassination.

That leads me to a few suggestions about
terminology. As long as we can keep reminding the American
public of the reality that

they`re being ripped off,
we`ll have the upper hand.
Therefore, emphasize the dishonesty.

In
contrast, be careful about using phrases full of
positive-sounding words.



“Birthright citizenship”

is a phrase loaded with good connotations. People tend to
react well to the words
“birth”,
“right”, and
“citizenship”. (Consider their antonyms—”death”, “wrong”. and
“treason”.) The
Boy Scouts award three merit badges with the word “citizenship
in the name. The Scouts emphasize the duties and
obligations beholden in citizenship. That`s what
“citizenship”
sounds like to the average patriotic American: doing right
by your fellow Americans. They need to be reminded that, to
the Zhous and Chaos of the world, it`s just a sweet scam.

When you need a technical term for the
current state of
law,
call it jus
soli
. That`s Latin for
“law of ground”.
Nobody has a warm and fuzzy feeling about a couple of words
they aren`t sure how to pronounce. (It`s pronounced
yüs-sō-lē.)

Similarly, let`s use
“anchor offspring” rather than
“anchor babies”.
Babies are cute.

In
contrast, we need to find an overgrown baby to make the
poster child of nationality cheating.

For
example, what about

Major Nidal Malik Hasan
—who in fact does look rather
like an

overgrown fetus?
Although he murdered 13 Americans at
Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009, he has yet to be tried.
Indeed, he is still being issued his U.S. Army

paychecks
!

We know that Major Hasan was born in
Virginia in 1970 to

Palestinian immigrant parents.
Were they legal or
illegal immigrants? A little research shows that nobody
seems to have bothered to
ask
this question. In modern America, it`s considered
insensitive to inquire about the background of a mass
murderer.

Or how about Major Hasan`s spiritual
advisor,
Anwar
al-Awlaki
? He also provided inspiration to the Christmas
Day

Underpants Bomber
and three of the 9/11 hijackers. This
al-Qaeda operative is a dual citizen of Yemen and the United
States because he was born in New Mexico in 1971.

As these
top-of-the-head examples show, it shouldn`t be that hard to
find an incredibly unsympathetic figure to exemplify the
issue.

Is
jus soli protected
by the 14th Amendment, or could it be modified by
legislation (as happened in Britain, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand)?
Howard
Sutherland
argued in VDARE.com (on August 31, 2001!)
that it should not require a Constitutional amendment to
eliminate jus soli.
(Weigh
Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause
)

Now, I`m no legal expert, so I don`t know
whether the law could be changed through legislation or
whether it would require a Constitutional amendment. Yet I
don`t see that it`s all that important of a political
strategy question. Why shouldn`t both tracks be pursued
simultaneously? (In fact, this is

exactly
what Congressman Ron Paul has
advocated.)

In the 1970s, for example,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
shamelessly argued both:

She was
rewarded for talking out of both sides of her mouth with a
seat on the Supreme Court.

A dual
track attack on nationality cheating will keep generating
news about cheating, which is all to the good.

Spending
political capital to demonstrate how we are being conned
just creates more political capital.

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.

His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog. His new book,

AMERICA`S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA`S
"STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is
available


here
.]