When discussing Immigration, legal or illegal, invariably the subject of “Anchor Babies” and “Birthright Citizenship” will arise. Congress and previous Presidents have ignored the growing controversy, so at some point, SCOTUS will have to address whether Birthright Citizenship is legal or not.
When the United States was formed, the concept of Birthright Citizenship was adopted from British Common Law that was in effect at the time. That concept was “jus soli”, meaning “right of the soil.” Under jus soli, anyone born in the territory of a “state” would be a citizen of that state. It would not matter whether the parents were citizens or not.
With the establishment of the United States at the time, Birthright Citizenship made since. Most people who had been born in the US were the sons and daughters of “immigrants” who had come earlier to the New World. The parents had forsaken loyalties to their home countries, coming to American with the hopes and dreams of bettering themselves.
Jus soli was unquestionably the law of the land up until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Through the 14th Amendment, the citizenship status of slaves birthed in America was affirmed. It gave them full citizenship rights at birth.
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there have been questions regarding whether it applied to everyone, and if not, whom. Indicative of this problem is that American Indians were not considered citizens at birth. It took the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 by Congress to make the Indian a citizen at birth. Yet, those born here whose parents were foreign diplomats would not be citizens.
Advocates of birthright citizenship extend the requirements for former slaves under the 14th Amendment to everyone being born here. This includes all here illegally and those coming for “birthright tourism.”
Opponents cite that the person applying for citizenship would be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and having no loyalties to the “home country.”
The question of birthright citizenship opens to those who qualify unrestricted access to the greatest country on earth, and its riches……….financial, educational, freedom, etc.
An emerging soon to be court case may finally find the SCOTUS taking a stand on birthright citizenship in the near future. It is the situation surround Hoda Muthana that will be the true test for birthright citizenship.
Hoda Muthana and Return to US
Hoda Muthana’s parents originally came over from Yemen with her father in a “diplomatic” position.” Hoda was born in Hackensack, New Jersey in 1994. Muthana left the US in 2014 to join ISIS. She was eventually captured by Kurdish forces. She has since renounced ISIS and wishes to return to the US.
Herein lies the problem of her return to the US.
Hoda holds a valid US passport and believes that she has birthright citizenship. She claims that her father was no long a diplomat when she was born. Her parents are now naturalized citizens of the US. (When they became naturalized is unknown, nor why they stayed in the US.)
The US claims otherwise, that her father was still a diplomat, and there is no valid claim of citizenship. The position is that she holds no valid Passport or Visa allowing for her to return. Therefore, there is no reason for her to be allowed to be returned to the US.
The ability of Muthana to return to America rides upon these questions.
- Was her father still a diplomat when Hoda was born? Or had he already left the position? If he was still considered a diplomat, then Hoda has no claims.
- If Hoda’s father no longer worked for the Yemeni government, under what circumstances would the US government no longer consider him a diplomat? What was his reasons for leaving Yemeni employment? It may very well be that Hoda would be a citizen by birth if her father was no longer recognized by the US as a dipmolat.
- How did Hoda Muthana get a US passport? Only US citizens are allowed to hold a passport. If she has a legitimate passport, then she has the right to return to the US.
- If the US refuses to allow her to return, Muthana becomes “a woman without a country,” something that the UN and the US have stated opposition to at various times in the nation’s history.
To make this case even more interesting is that President Trump is purportedly the person who “ordered” her return to be denied. Yet, he has advocated that all countries of the world accept the return of their own citizens like Muthana, and prosecuted if possible.
Muthana’s attorney has stated that if the US government refuses to allow her to return to the country, then she will take action in US courts, demanding due process be given to Muthana. This will virtually guarantee that at some point, SCOTUS will be given the opportunity to review Birthright Citizen.
My perspective would be that the US continue to deny her claims, and let her file a lawsuit. Then the US does everything in its power to see the lawsuit taken to SCOTUS where they can put to rest once and for all the question of Birthright Citizenship.
(Note to my friends and readers: Thank you for your concern for my recent health events. As you can see, I am somewhat back to normal. I look forward to providing further context on the issues of the day.)
This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!