A semi-modest proposal

Submitted for review and comment, I think one of the first orders of business in the new administration ought to be a constitutional amendment putting to rest a couple of controversial subjects.  I’ll discuss a bit more following the proposed text (with commentary in parentheses as we go).

I.  Any person whose parents are naturalized or natural-born citizens of the United States at the time of his birth shall be considered a natural-born citizen of the United States, regardless of the location of his birth.

II.  Any person whose mother or father, but not both, is a naturalized or natural-born citizen of the United States at the time of his birth shall be considered a natural-born citizen of the United States, regardless of the location of his birth or the laws of any other sovereign entity granting dual or multiple citizenship to said person.  In the event of such person’s father but not mother being a citizen of the United States, the burden shall fall on the person to prove paternity by genetic testing in order to be considered a natural-born citizen of the United States.

III.  All provisions of this Constitution and other federal, state, and local laws providing for citizenship for persons born within the geographical borders of the United States, its holdings and territories are hereby repealed.

IV.  The provisions of clause II of this amendment shall be retroactive and apply to any persons currently living (meaning Barry and John McCain and Ted Cruz are all A-OK).  The remainder of this amendment shall be retroactive to the date of introduction of this amendment for consideration.

So basically this would end the strange American practice of granting automatic citizenship to anyone who happens to be born on our land, which prompts illegal aliens to scurry across the border when they’re nine months pregnant, have their “anchor baby,” and then sign up for all the benefits of the massive welfare state while using their child as a human shield against criticism, deportation, or even attempts to get them to integrate.  Isn’t it funny how when America does something differently from the rest of the world but the left likes it they don’t tell us about how Europe does it?  Anyway.  This would also define once and for all what exactly a “natural-born” citizen is–it’s already been pretty clearly established and frankly if Barry counts then anyone ought to, but this would spell it out in black and white.  The reason for making the second clause retroactive while the remainder is not is the second clause is clarifying “natural-born” and will result in inclusion, while the rest will exclude future anchor babies from step-over-the-border citizenship.  Much as some of us might like to make that point retroactive it would really be unfair and would present an unnecessary sticking point to passage.  Making the remainder retroactive to the date of introduction rather than the date of passage, on the other hand, would prevent a last-minute rush of pregnant illegals crossing the border to induce labor and get in under the buzzer.

And really, the concept of granting land-based citizenship dates back to a time when the average citizen of this country was older than the country itself.  That time has long passed.  I don’t give a flip about being like the rest of the world but I think it’s about time this particular element of exceptionalism went by the wayside.  Feel free to make suggestions or corrections in the comments.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s