Every government eventually reaches the point where people stop asking whether the law exists and begin asking whether anyone intends to enforce it. That is where we are today. Reports surfaced showing Mission Regional Medical Center in South Texas advertising maternity packages in Mexico through Spanish-language billboards and a website encouraging expectant mothers to travel to Texas to give birth.
The hospital has since removed the advertisements, claiming they were misunderstood, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered an investigation into whether any laws or contractual obligations were violated. If the investigation concludes that the purpose was to market travel for birthright citizenship, then this is not simply a public relations problem. It is a legal problem, and the legal system must finally decide whether the law means what it says or whether it has become entirely optional.
Everyone knows birth tourism has existed for years. Entire businesses have been built around helping foreign nationals travel to countries that offer broad birthright citizenship. Yet governments have largely looked the other way, hoping the issue would remain politically untouchable.
Other developed nations that once had broad birthright citizenship changed course years ago. Ireland amended its constitution in 2004. Numerous European countries require that at least one parent be a citizen or lawful long-term resident before automatic citizenship is granted. They confronted the legal question instead of pretending it did not exist. Meanwhile, leftist American judges claim that foreigners have a right to enjoy protections intended for taxpaying citizens. Hospitals are businesses, and unfortunately, this hospital is merely profiting on a provision that is too blatant to be considered a loophole.
The Common Law Doctrine of Jus Soli under English common law protected “right of the soil,” which deemed anyone born on a country’s soil to be a citizen. The US Constitution never clearly defined citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1790, which granted citizenship to “free white persons” born on US soil. The advent of the Civil War left dire uncertainty for slaves who had no homeland to return to after the war came to an end and slavery was abolished. The 1844 case Lynch v Clarke in New York reaffirmed that anyone born to non-citizen parents would be considered an American. The Reconstruction Amendments remained vague, and Dred Scott was expanded in 1868 to include:
“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.”
The law remained open to interpretation. Native Americans, for example, were not seen as Americans since they did not pledge their allegiance to the federal government. It was not until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Native Americans were considered full citizens.
America’s complicated past with citizenship has led to today’s debacle. Nowhere along the way did the Supreme Court or any other entity grant citizenship to parents of children born in the US. However, the system often looks the other way to prevent separating families. American-born children may sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. Then, the parents must wait five years before applying for naturalization. Parents often must leave the US for a decade before applying for citizenship.
The framers of the 14th Amendment were not looking to grant citizenship to illegal aliens. The whole illegal alien status really began to emerge with socialism. People came to America previously for the land of opportunity – not a free ride. The 14th Amendment was primarily to secure the rights of the slaves who had been freed and to overturn Dred Scott, making them citizens regardless of race.
The amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1868, developed after the Civil War to ensure that slaves could become American citizens. Today, the law is abused by those who illegally migrate into the country. The grey area surrounding this issue is the basic “intent” behind any law. All laws are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the legislative intent for which they were originally enacted, as revealed in the Congressional Record prior to the passage. The passage of no amount of time can change the original legislative intent of a law. Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out our legislative purpose. Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938). Judges are supposed to be bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted. Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895).
This failure of judges to rule in this manner is commonplace, and it has led to a lot of legal persecution in which prosecutors twist the word to fit their objective. I recommend reading the work On Liberty of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). You will get a sense of how bad our legal system has become. We have witnessed the abuse of cases against Trump desperately trying to fit the words to anything he had done.
The 14th Amendment no longer holds true for its original intent. America is broke — we cannot afford to sustain our own citizens or infrastructure, and the migrant crisis has become a massive burden on taxpayers. What is the answer? Shall we hold the 14th Amendment to its original intent or allow prosecutors to manipulate the words to score victories?