Born in the USA - Part 1

Q: Is it a good idea to amend the [US] Constitution to remove the birthright citizenship in view of the current and ongoing illegal immigration problems?

A: No. No harm arises from recognizing all persons born in the US as citizens. The proposed amendment
runs counter to the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Immigration is a tough problem for us Americans at this time, but we must not give up just because it is tough. And the proposed amendment amounts to giving up. For Americans, govt exists to protect human rights. We shouldn’t use the Constitution to deny rights. It falls to us to make America work.

In the vernacular of our age, the Declaration is the vision statement, and the Constitution is the operating manual.

I descended from my ancestor Henry Brockman who settled in the Maryland Colony in the 17^th century, and from his progeny who were born in what is now the United States. I was born in the State of North Carolina. I am more American than was Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the island of Nevis, in 1757, a British subject. He immigrated to New York in 1772. Had current immigration laws existed at that time, Hamilton would likely not have been able to get a visa for at least ten years, since he was from the Caribbean, thus he would have been late for the Revolution.

Let’s be plain about the implications of this amendment. For people who want to deport foreign women who give birth in the United States, this amendment would remove the impediment that is the baby citizen. The would-be deporters want to prevent foreign women from living in the United States. They want to deny to those women the right to liberty, that is, to go peacefully where they please, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, that is, to peaceful activity without prior permit. Further, to thwart these women, the proponents would also deny the rights of the newborn child, a person entirely innocent, with whom no one can find fault. Yet liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable human rights. There isn’t a conflict of rights in which we must make an unfortunate choice. We can sustain the rights of both the woman and the child, and that is the proper role for govt.

We note that among the grievances against the King listed in the Declaration was his interference with “migrations hither”.


To be continued...

---