Matthews: Can we at least put a stop to ‘birth tourism’ (USA)?

Some useful data in the commentary:

President Trump ignited a flurry of activity with his executive order attempting to stop “birthright citizenship” — the constitutional provision that all children born on U.S. soil (including the territories) automatically become U.S. citizens. Based on the first judge to rule on Trump’s EO, it appears the administration faces an uphill battle in the courts. But whatever the courts decide on birthright citizenship, Americans should at least be able to agree that the practice of “birth tourism” is an abuse of the system and should be stopped.

Birth tourism is when pregnant women from other countries enter the United States for the purpose of having their child, who under the 14th Amendment automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, usually returning home thereafter.

For example, the health policy news site Fierce Healthcare wrote in 2009, “Of late, a growing number of well-to-do Mexican mothers have been coming to the U.S. to have their babies, who automatically get American citizenship since they were born on U.S. soil.” One Arizona medical facility marketed “a ‘birth package’ offering cutting edge technology, cozy settings and the chance for mothers to grant their babies American citizenship.” The facility even posted its (2009) prices: $2,300 for a vaginal birth and $4,600 for a c-section.

While Mexican women may have been the primary offenders in the past, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported in 2020 that the list of countries has expanded to China, Taiwan, Korea, Nigeria, Turkey, Russia and Brazil. It adds that birth tourism has grown dramatically in some of the U.S. territories, where Chinese citizens can easily obtain visas to visit.

A senior policy director at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute wrote in 2018, “Women from foreign countries, mainly China and Russia, are paying tens of thousands of dollars to temporarily relocate to the U.S. during their pregnancy in order to give birth in the U.S. and thereby guarantee U.S. citizenship for their child.”

The Wall Street Journal adds, “Companies in China have attracted attention in recent years for advertising such services, and airlines in Asia even started turning away some pregnant passengers they suspected of traveling to give birth.”

The federal government tried to limit birth tourism during the first Trump administration. The U.S. Department of State announced in January of 2020, “[T]he Department is amending its B nonimmigrant visa regulation to address birth tourism. Under this amended regulation, U.S. consular officers overseas will deny any B visa application from an applicant whom the consular officer has reason to believe is traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

It’s unclear how strictly this order has been enforced, especially given President Biden’s lax approach to immigration. But Trump wants to clamp down on the practice again by tightening the criteria to qualify for a tourist visa, the Journal reports.

How many births are we talking about? In 2020 the CIS estimated “that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually.” While that’s a small percentage of the estimated 4.4 million child-citizens born to illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Research Center, it’s still a significant number.

To be sure, there are some key differences between birth tourism and those residing in the U.S. illegally who take advantage of birthright citizenship. Women engaging in birth tourism may be from upper-income families who enter the U.S. or its territories legally on a visa. And those returning with their child to their home country are unlikely to become a drain on taxpayers by signing up for various benefits available to children.

Then why do these women go to the trouble? Apparently, the hope is since their child is a U.S. citizen, they would receive preferential treatment in the future if or when they seek to move to the U.S. But even if one can sympathize with their goal, birth tourism is a flagrant abuse of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.

The courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will determine the merits of Trump’s executive order, but most legal scholars think ending birthright citizenship will take either legislation or a constitutional amendment.

But even if the courts uphold the 14th Amendment’s long-accepted meaning of birthright citizenship, that may not extend to birth tourism.

The Supreme Court permits exceptions and limitations to many of our constitutional rights. You have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. But the courts allow certain venues — e.g., government buildings, schools, commercial airplanes and sports facilities  — to prohibit bringing a gun on the premises.

The best solution is for Congress and the Trump administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which could include any limitations or restrictions Congress wants imposed on birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, comprehensive reform is unlikely until Republicans believe they have regained control of the borders. And that may take a while.

Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of “On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.” 

Source: Can we at least put a stop to ‘birth tourism’?

Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

One of the better overviews, covering the politics, legal aspects and operational practicalities (some familiar to Canadian issues under the Conservative government in 2012):

President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship declares that babies born to many temporary residents of the United States — not just those in the country illegally — must be denied automatic citizenship, a dramatic rejection of rights that have been part of the Constitution for more than 150 years.

If the courts do not block the order, babies born to women living legally, but temporarily, in the United States — such as people studying on a student visa or workers hired by high-tech companies — will not automatically be recognized by the federal government as U.S. citizens if the father is also not a permanent resident.

Aides to Mr. Trump had told reporters on Monday morning that the order would apply to “children of illegal aliens born in the United States.” In fact, the language in the order Mr. Trump signed, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” goes much further.

“It’s a shocking attack on people in this country who are here lawfully, played by the rules and are benefiting the country,” said David Leopold, the chair of the immigration practice at the law firm UB Greensfelder. “We’re talking about people who are doing cutting-edge research in the United States, researchers, people who are here to help us.”

The order was part of a barrage of actions that Mr. Trump authorized on Monday to carry out his vision of a country with far less immigration. Despite claims he repeated on Monday that “I’m fine with legal immigration; I like it,” the president’s new orders would also severely curtail the options of those looking to enter the United States legally.

Many of the president’s closest advisers, including Stephen Miller, his deputy chief of staff and the architect of his immigration policy, have urged a tough line on birthright citizenship. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Miller and other aides pushed to make sure that immigrants could no longer establish what they call an “anchor” in the United States by having a baby who automatically becomes an American citizen.

In addition to targeting birthright citizenship, Mr. Trump on Monday barred asylum for immigrants seeking to cross the southern border, imposed an indefinite suspension of the legal refugee system, terminated several legal pathways for immigrants put in place by the Biden administration and declared the existence of an “invasion” from immigrants aimed at giving the federal government broad powers to stop all kinds of people from entering.

The executive order regarding birthright citizenship says that right will be denied for babies born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents with green cards, including women who are “visiting on a student, work or tourist visa” if the father is not a citizen or a legal permanent resident. In that case, the order says, “no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship.”

There are serious questions about how Mr. Trump’s administration would impose such a dramatic change in policy.

Currently, the citizenship of babies born in the United States is documented in a two-step process.

First, the state or territorial government will issue a birth certificate confirming where and when the birth took place. The birth certificate does not include any information about the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

Second, when that baby (or the parents, on the child’s behalf) applies for a passport, the birth certificate showing that the baby was born on U.S. soil is enough to prove citizenship. No other documentation is required.

Mr. Trump’s executive order indicates that in 30 days, all federal agencies will be required to confirm the immigration status of the parents before issuing documents like a passport.

Left unclear, however, is how that would be put into practice.

One option would be for state agencies to check the immigration status of parents and include that information on birth certificates. Then, when passports are requested, the federal government would be able to determine which babies qualify for automatic citizenship.

It could take years, however, for states to put in place a system that checks the immigration status of all parents — assuming they are willing to do so. The federal government could establish guidelines for the required information, but it would most likely be up to the states to decide how and whether to gather that data from parents when they issue a birth certificate.

If the states do not overhaul the birth certificate process, the federal government could seek to enforce Mr. Trump’s order by requiring people applying for passports to present both a birth certificate and proof of their parents’ citizenship status when they were born.

That could become extremely cumbersome, legal experts said, particularly for people with complicated family dynamics or missing legal documents.

Several White House officials did not respond to questions seeking clarification about how the order might be carried out.

Legal scholars and immigration advocates said on Tuesday that they were stunned by the breadth of the order.

Advocates are hoping that judges will step in and put it on hold before it is set to take effect on Feb. 20. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire on Monday night challenging the order, just hours after the president signed it.

And on Tuesday, attorneys general from 22 states and two cities sued Mr. Trump to block the executive order. Rulings by either judge could temporarily suspend the order, prompting what could be a monthslong legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court.

“It’s very clear that they mean to double down on their nativistic anti-immigrant agenda, and that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. has got to be a core part of their plan,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. “If we were to repeal birthright citizenship, it would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination that would undo the very core of this grand American experiment.”

Birthright citizenship in the United States was put in place after the Civil War to allow Black people to be citizens. The 14th Amendment says 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.” Before the amendment was ratified in 1868, even free Black men and women could not become citizens.

Mr. Trump argues that his administration is within its rights to interpret what the writers of the amendment meant.

“The 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” his executive order said.

Many lawyers say that is flatly wrong. In their legal brief, the A.C.L.U.’s lawyers argued that the meaning of the 14th Amendment had been settled law for more than 125 years. They cited an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which they said the Supreme Court “emphatically rejected the last effort to undercut birthright citizenship.”

“The executive order is certainly unconstitutional,” said Cecillia Wang, the A.C.L.U.’s national legal director. “It’s fair to say that if the court were to uphold Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, it would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of the people and in the history books.”…

Source: Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

Good long and informative read:

When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it defined the United States nearly as deeply as the nation’s founding documents. “It’s certainly the most important change in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights,” the historian Eric Foner told me.

The amendment grants citizenship to almost everyone born inside the country — a rare policy for an advanced economy in the 21st century. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, only Canada and the United States allocate citizenship using the legal principle of jus soli, the right of soil.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to overturn territorial birthright citizenship. “We’re going to have to get it changed,” he told NBC News during his first extended interview after winning the election in November. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”

Trump has said that he will release an executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of “illegal aliens” on the first day that he takes office. Members of his team have told The New York Times that his administration will not issue passports and Social Security cards to children born to undocumented parents. These moves will inevitably be challenged in court, where the fate of birthright citizenship is likely to be decided.

Efforts to end birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized migrants date back more than four decades, but Trump’s return will most likely present one of the greatest challenges in the 14th Amendment’s 157-year history. Legal arguments that were once regarded as fringe have moved to the mainstream. The Supreme Court has proved itself willing to break with historical precedent in cases involving other conservative priorities, like abortion and presidential immunity. And Trump, who campaigned on the idea of restricting birthright citizenship, is entering office with a majority of the vote….

Source: Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

Ahead of Day 1, Trump’s Team Works to Temper Expectations on Immigration

Reality. But still expect degree of “shock and awe.” Risks disappointing base and perhaps reducing some anxiety given contrast between rhetoric and action:

President-elect Donald J. Trump vowed throughout his campaign to carry out the “largest deportation program in American history,” including a “Day 1” effort to send millions of immigrants “back home where they belong,” and putting “no price tag” on the effort.

But as he transitions from the campaign to the White House, Mr. Trump’s team is encountering a harsh reality of immigration policy: Easier said than done.

In public remarks and private conversations with members of Congress, Mr. Trump’s immigration team has conceded that his aspirations for mass deportations will be both costly and time-consuming.

Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda and his pick to be deputy chief of staff, met with congressional Republicans on Wednesday for a “level setting” of expectations and needs for immigration enforcement, according to a congressional member who participated in the meeting.

Tom Homan, Mr. Trump’s pick to oversee the deportations, has told Republicans to expect a phased approach that first prioritizes those with a criminal record, rather than a national sweep of any immigrant with uncertain or contested legal status. And he has made clear there is, indeed, a price tag for the efforts, saying they will need Congress to approve billions of additional dollars to carry them out.

That is a tall order on Capitol Hill, where Republicans hold slim majorities and Democrats are all but certain to oppose the funding of a mass deportation effort. Some lawmakers expect that after an initial wave of deportations of those easiest to remove, Mr. Trump will spend the rest of his time in office haggling with Congress over money for more.

“Congress needs to fund this deportation operation,” Mr. Homan told Fox Business in December. “It’s going to be expensive, and everybody is focused on how expensive it’s gonna be.”

Mr. Trump will still find ways to call attention to his early efforts to crack down, such as spotlighting deportations in Democratic-led cities or work site raids in the first days of his presidency. While appearing on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast in November, Mr. Homan said the public should expect immigration action that creates “shock and awe.”…

Source: Ahead of Day 1, Trump’s Team Works to Temper Expectations on Immigration

As border anxiety mounts, ads for smugglers in Canada helping migrants illegally cross into U.S. flourish on social media

Inevitable:

…“Canada to USA. Safe Reach,” the Facebook post says. “No police. Low price. Payment after reach.”

“Canada to USA. Safe Game. Cheapest in Market. 100-per-cent guarantee,” reads a post on Instagram.

Smugglers offering to help people cross the border illegally into the United States are openly advertising their services on social media. The Globe and Mail has found multiple posts from people smugglers who are promoting “safe” routes to the United States, including from Montreal and British Columbia, with some claiming there will be no police involvement or checkpoints.

Some advertisements call their work “dunki” or “donkey” services, with payment due upon arrival. The price, which is not always stated, is in one case listed as $3,500 for same-day service from Canada to the U.S., with “payment after reach.”

Other ads also tout smuggling services over the U.S.’s southern border, as well as to and from other countries….

Source: As border anxiety mounts, ads for smugglers in Canada helping migrants illegally cross into U.S. flourish on social media

The U.S. and Canada quietly agreed to share personal data on permanent residents crossing the border

Understandable given some recent examples of security risks. Dated pre pre-Trump. But government should have been more transparent:

Top immigration lawyers say it’s “shocking” that the federal government quietly signed a new deal with the U.S. government that automatically trades troves of personal data of millions of permanent residents in either country when they try to cross the U.S.-Canada border.

In July, the U.S. and Canadian government quietly made a major change to a 2012 agreement that authorized the automatic sharing of personal information between both countries of non-residents who applied for visas.

The original deal deliberately excluded permanent residents and citizens of both countries from the information sharing regime. But an updated agreement quietly tabled in Parliament in October added permanent residents to the list of individuals whose personal information would automatically be sent to either government if they tried to cross the U.S.-Canada border.

The updated agreement, which was signed in July but came into force this month, impacts potentially millions of permanent residents in Canada and even more in the U.S. if they decide to apply for a visa to visit either country.

In a statement, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) spokesperson Jeffrey MacDonald said that information sharing between the U.S. and Canada “strengthens visitor screening and supports managed migration.”

“The Government of Canada will be authorized to use biographic or biometric information of U.S. permanent residents (PR) making an immigration application to Canada to query and obtain information concerning their immigration history with the U.S,” MacDonald wrote.

“Likewise, the U.S. will be authorized to use biographic or biometric information of Canadian PRs making an immigration application to the U.S. to query and obtain information concerning their immigration history with Canada,” he added.

According to a government website, the information being shared ranges from a visa applicant’s personal information, picture, fingerprint and immigration history.

In an interview, immigration lawyer Mario Bellissimo said that automatically sending the U.S. government data about Canadian permanent residents wanting to cross the southern border is akin to a “devaluation” of permanent resident status.

“On what basis did the government determine that permanent residence needed to be surveilled in this way?,” wondered the chair of the Canadian Bar Association’ national immigration law section.

But the changes were kept quiet by the Canadian government until a brief mention by Immigration Minister Marc Miller during a press conference Wednesday, raising significant concerns among immigration lawyers as to why the major change was kept quiet for so long.

Source: The U.S. and Canada quietly agreed to share personal data on permanent residents crossing the border

Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management

Usual solid analysis from MPI, with approach and results undercover by media and not discussed by Harris campaign:

As the Biden administration comes to an end on January 20, so does one of the most ambitious migration management policy agendas in recent memory. Over the last four years, the administration initiated an innovative strategy mixing increased regional cooperation on immigration enforcement and a more orderly system for border arrivals with a significant expansion of lawful pathways and efforts to push humanitarian protection decisions away from the border. Based on the notion of “safe mobility,” this strategy eventually saw irregular migration to the U.S.-Mexico border drop to its lowest level in almost five years after a period of record arrivals. But it took a long time to implement the various elements—a period during which the U.S. public became increasingly restive over perceived chaos at the border and large numbers of irregular arrivals. Even as some key aspects of the strategy have yet to be fully implemented, the incoming Trump administration will assert its own, differing vision for migration management at U.S. borders and relations with neighboring countries.

Still, the Biden-era innovations have been watched with interest across the Atlantic, where many European governments are struggling to find an effective answer to similar mixed movements of asylum seekers and irregular migrants. While some of the U.S. measures were more developed than others, together they provide the seeds of an approach that ensures greater border control while advancing pathways for humanitarian protection.

The Biden experience makes clear, though, that sequencing matters. Many of the elements promoting protection pathways preceded the efforts for greater regional enforcement and heightened U.S. requirements to seek asylum at borders. It was not until June 2024 that many enforcement measures, including greater cooperation with the Mexican and Panamanian governments and narrowing of asylum eligibility at borders, were fully implemented, with irregular arrivals then dropping precipitously. As a result, the administration will likely be remembered more for the several million migrants who were allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than the combination of measures that finally brought irregular migration under control.

The incoming Trump administration will undoubtedly pursue a strategy based primarily on enforcement, not lawful pathways, and further reduce access to humanitarian protection. That does not mean, however, that a balanced approach that includes robust enforcement and lawful pathways is dead. Instead, for countries that want to pursue this, it points to the need for a more pragmatic approach that achieves early reductions in arrivals while also preserving pathways for protection, not delaying the enforcement-focused elements of the strategy….

Finally, the Biden administration initiatives offer a crucial lesson about managing public trust and messaging. First, it has become almost gospel that the orderliness of migration (in a planned, legal way) matters almost as much or more than the absolute numbers arriving. The CHNV and SMO programs would seem to have fulfilled this criteria—migrants arrived with authorization at airports and with a sponsor or local agency ready to receive them and support their initial reception costs. Yet there was little messaging to U.S. publics by the government about either program, leaving the door open for critics to exploit the narrative, accusing the administration of paying to fly in future voters. It also seems that numbers may, in fact, matter after all. While more than 860,000 migrants came in through CBP One appointments and another 800,000-plus through the CHNV process and similar parole processes for Ukrainians and Afghans, nearly 4.2 million other migrants were allowed in after crossing a border without authorization, in addition to others who managed to cross the border undetected. For many local communities and service providers, who received minimal support from the federal government for the costs incurred in addressing the needs of these new arrivals, the pace of change and demands placed upon them were great….

Source: Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management


Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges

Sean Rehaag has been showing similar discrepancies in Canada. Kahneman argues persuasively that automated systems are the preferred approach to deliver consistent rulings, albeit great care is needed to ensure that no unfortunate biases get coded into the system.

Wide swings in judicial outcomes for immigration asylum cases nationwide since 2019 are noted in a recent report.

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases.

But, on average, more than half of all asylum cases in the United States over the past five years have been denied, a sentiment that has repeatedly been said by at least one South Texas congressman.

The nationwide asylum denial rate from 2019 through 2024 was 57.7%, according to the TRAC report released in November.

“To grant or deny an asylum application is among the most consequential decisions an immigration judge makes. For this reason, understanding how asylum decisions vary across time, across courts, and across judges warrants more attention — particularly in current public policy debates on immigration enforcement policies to reduce the court’s backlog of cases. The lessons that are evident from past decades should not be ignored. For many asylum seekers our current system has not delivered a fast and fair resolution of their cases. Often it has delivered neither,” the TRAC report found.
(TRAC Graphic)
Some of the reasons for wide variations in outcome of asylum cases could be that fewer valid claims came before certain courts. Asylum applicants typically submit their claims to the court nearest their residency. Immigrants from the same country also tend to live in the same communities and their claims and outcomes can be correlated, the report found.

Other significant factors that can influence asylum outcomes includes the availability of skilled immigration attorneys in various communities, as well as court and docket size for number of immigration cases assigned to each judge, according to TRAC.

Two immigration judges in Houston — Monique Harris and Bruce Imbacuan, were cited in the report as having denied 100% of asylum cases in their courts. Harris has adjudicated 108 cases, Imbacuan has heard 105 cases with no cases granted asylum and no cases granted some type of relief, according to TRAC.

Bios on these judges show Harris previously worked as legal counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her case denials all fell within 2019, according to TRAC. Imbacuan was appointed in 2020 and all of his denial cases occurred in 2020. He previously worked for ICE in Cleveland, Ohio, TRAC reports.

That’s contrary to other judges within the very same court who have denial rates of 70% and 79% but who also have heard many ore cases, 430 and 235, respectively.

In South Texas, the nine immigration judges deciding cases in Harlingen, vary in denial rates from 57.8% to 84.3%. The 11 judges in the Laredo immigration courts vary with denial rates from 24.5% to 90.2%. And the five judges in Los Fresnos, Texas, have had denial rates from 77.5% to 90.6%, the report finds.
In West Texas, the El Paso immigration court judges have issued denial rates ranging from 14.7% to 85.5%.

Judge Lorely Ramirez Fernandez, in El Paso, heard 129 cases since 2019 and has granted asylum to 70.5% of cases and some type of relief to 14.7% of other asylum cases, TRAC says. Her bio lists her as having served as a staff attorney with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso in 2007.
San Francisco immigration Judge Elisa Brasil has denied just 1.3% of cases since 2023, since she has been on the bench, according to TRAC. She previously represented clients before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which are immigration courts, TRAC found.

“Although denial rates are shaped by each judge’s judicial philosophy, denial rates are also shaped by other factors, such as the types of cases on the judge’s docket, the detained status of immigrant respondents, current immigration policies, and other factors beyond an individual judge’s control,” the report found.

TRAC reports that, to date, there are over 3.7 million immigration cases pending.

Source: Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges



Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

Never heard birth tourism described in this manner:

There have been some interesting discussions about birthright citizenship, intensified by Donald Trump’s election a few weeks ago.

A number of people who are angry at the chaos at the border have jumped right over the normal processes and procedures which would guarantee illegal border crossings are limited, and hit right at one of the core principles of our nation, one embedded in the 14th Amendment – if you are born here, regardless of the status of your parents, you are a U.S. citizen.

The actual wording of the amendment is as follows: “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.”

Those who don’t like the idea that birth on American territory automatically grants you the gift of American citizenship have started to parse the words of the amendment. They are doing what gun reform activists tried to do with the 2nd Amendment, making the “right to bear arms” a collective right held by “militias,” not an individual and a personal right for each and every American citizen. That parsing, which would make every Catholic school English teacher who ever diagrammed a sentence on a blackboard proud, was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to own a gun. That being the case, conservative attempts to dismantle well over a century of constitutional precedent is dishonest, and untenable.

Some argue the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means parents of the child born in this country must be legally here in order to confer citizenship. The point they are missing, or actually one of several points, is that it is not the parents who are conveying anything but life to the child.

It is the Constitution itself that is conveying citizenship. More importantly, virtually everyone physically present in the U.S., regardless of legal status, is subject to the jurisdiction of our government. If this were not the case, we can imagine a Batman style Gotham city environment, where illegal aliens could just commit crimes and the only thing we could do if we catch them is deport them. No arrests, no jail terms, no trials and no life sentences.

Imagine if that were the case with Laken Riley’s murderer, an illegal alien who is now going to spend the rest of his life behind bars. This writer would have been happier had he been sentenced to death, but that’s another column altogether.

The idea we can simply strip people of their citizenship and thereby erase a constitutional right, merely to solve a problematic but temporary problem at the border, is anathema. I know legal scholars have differed on the integrity of birthright citizenship, but they are going to need better arguments than those proffered by anti-immigration activists in order to be able to convince even this conservative Supreme Court of their legitimacy.

I am an immigration lawyer and my bias is incorporated into my viewpoint. Thirty years of doing this work will color anyone’s perspective on the laws governing immigration policy. I understand extremely well the importance of maintaining order at the border, but stripping people born here of their birthright, one over a century old in its recognition, on specious political grounds is not going to advance that goal.

People do not come here to “have” U.S. citizen children, who frankly can only be of benefit from an immigration perspective after the child turns 21 or in a few other very limited circumstances. The immigration laws already eliminate U.S. citizen children as the basis of most waivers of inadmissibility and against deportation/removal, so this is simply an appeal to the lowest common denominator, the basest instincts of the xenophobic.

Where will we draw the line? Is being born to a citizen the only way to ensure the citizenship of the child? Is being born to a visitor who has the right to live here for a few months enough? Do you need your green card? And is this what we want, a world where your value is based on your parents’ status in the country? I don’t think that Americans are that sort of people.

So even if you do support Trump’s more draconian policies on immigration, you are not as patriotic as you think if you are in favor of making newborns criminals in their cribs.

Source: Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

The undefended Canada-U.S. border gets renewed scrutiny as Trump’s win revives historic anxieties

Good long read and overview. Excerpt some of the most interesting comments:

…In the rush to find ways of taming Mr. Trump’s sudden fury about the Canadian border, experts are now calling for the revival of obscure and long-dormant bilateral bodies. Former public safety minister Marco Mendicino said one way to “send a very strong signal to the president-elect” is to immediately reconvene a meeting of the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum, which was revived after several years in abeyance last year.

The forum, composed of Canada’s public safety and justice ministers, and the U.S. secretary of homeland security and attorney-general, is a ready-made platform for sharing intelligence and addressing concerns about human and drug smuggling across the border.

“Being pro-active is crucial, because we want to transmit that we are in total alignment when it comes to shoring up the integrity of the border,” Mr. Mendicino said.

If Canadians often thought of their border with the U.S. as a kind of decorative ticker tape, the Trump administration appears to believe the border is more like a fishing net that is full of holes. And some of the numbers do suggest that our shared border is becoming more porous to migrants and drugs, as Mr. Trump alleged in his social media post.

Statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that roughly twice as many suspected terrorists have tried to cross from Canada into the U.S. as have from Mexico in recent years.

The data are deeply concerning for Americans in the post-9/11 era and should be taken seriously and investigated by Canadian officials, said Michael Barutciski, a York University professor of international affairs.

As recently as September, he pointed out, a Pakistani man living in the Toronto area was arrested near the border in Ormstown, Que., in September on allegations he was plotting an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on a Jewish centre in New York. The man entered Canada on a student visa last year.

“It doesn’t look good,” said Prof. Barutciski. “It’s a very sensitive issue and they often turn to Canada as sort of a weak point and they’re paranoid about that and we can’t deny that once in a while we do give them reasons to be afraid.”

Former Conservative public safety minister Peter Van Loan thinks the fear of Canadian terror strikes in the U.S. is overblown and that the perception is worth combatting while the issue is front and centre. After all, the data on terrorists reflect those who tried to enter the country and were prevented from doing so.

“It has been a long running misunderstanding among Americans that Canada has been a source of terrorists,” he said. “None of the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. I continually ran into American politicians who believe they did come in through Canada, and the fact is, they did not. So Canada has a bit of a public relations issue there.”

The border is certainly under growing strain from irregular migrants – although the perception that they are more likely to be criminals has been harshly scrutinized. A recent U.S. study found that undocumented immigrants in Texas, at least, had lower rates of violent crime than U.S.-born citizens….

Source: The undefended Canada-U.S. border gets renewed scrutiny as Trump’s win revives historic anxieties