Donald Trump is pushing ahead with ending birthright citizenship. That is for those born on American soil to non-citizens and undocumented immigrants. What is more, the US president is hellbent on making this a one-man show. For he believes there is no need to put the matter before Congress when an executive order will do.
\nAt the heart of the matter lies the 14th Amendment. The first line of which states: \u201cAll persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.\u201d Trump and his supporters argue that this provision applies only to those holding nationality or permanent lawful residence. All of which underscores the need for cross-partisan informed debate. Particularly when the courts must have the final say on the mechanism by which the aforementioned may be executed.
\nIn short, such proposed constitutional changes cannot be reduced to a mere political football. Yet this is exactly what is happening. The US president, with his eye firmly on the mid-terms that are just a week away, is upping the anti-immigration ante. And in doing so he risks entering into the realm of propaganda. Indeed, Trump has already made the blatantly erroneous claim that his country is the only one in the world that accords birthright citizenship. As far as the Americas go (comprising both North and South America), some 30 out of 35 nations uphold this right. Additionally, this extends to the children of undocumented immigrants.
\nThis is not to say that the US does not have the right to revisit the question of who will be eligible for nationality. The UK, for example, does not afford citizenship at birth to those born to non-British parents. Unless, that is, one parent enjoys settled status. That being said, London\u2019s treatment of the Wind rush generation highlights that even when immigrants were invited to Britain at the request of Her Majesty\u2019s government and were given indefinite leave to remain \u2014 by way of the 1971 Immigration Act \u2013 this has not been sufficient to render them immune from deportation; as has been brutally witnessed under the last three Tory tenures. All of which serves to remind that the existence of prevailing laws does not necessarily translate into protection of the people.
\nWhat is therefore required is for regimes of the day to come into office with a clear-cut agenda on immigration and citizenship. Along with the expectation that this will likely not be resolved during their respective tenures. Rather, it should be acknowledged that this has to be an ongoing debate across all political divides. In consultation with local courts and legal experts while keeping in mind obligations under international law.
\nThe world is passing through a period of immense upheaval. International and civil wars are seemingly on the increase; precipitating increased exoduses. Thus international commitments to help those in peril become all the more significant. And linked to this is the question of who and who does not get to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. A global discourse is therefore needed. Not arbitrary unilateral measures that threaten to violate constitutional safeguards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Donald Trump is pushing ahead with ending birthright citizenship. That is for those born on American soil to non-citizens and undocumented immigrants. What is more, the US president is hellbent on making this a one-man show. For he believes there is no need to put the matter before Congress when an executive order will do. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-33106","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article"},"yoast_head":"\n