Recent news reports have included references to birthright citizenship that may show or even cause confusion. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been described as “a birthright citizen” in numerous articles. Rubio is in fact a birthright citizen, since he was born in the United States. But the articles often go into details about his parents’ status at the time of Rubio’s birth. Some say they were legal permanent residents, others that they were undocumented, and all note that they were not U.S. citizens. Social media claims describe Rubio as a “beneficiary of birthright citizenship.”
Rubio is by no means the only example. Folarin Balogun, a star of the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team, was often referred to in this way during the World Cup. Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Second Lady Usha Vance have all been named as “birthright citizens.” This usage suggests that birthright citizens are specifically babies born to noncitizens.
Understanding birthright citizenship
In fact, everyone born in the United States and under its jurisdiction is a birthright citizen. The “under its jurisdiction” phrase means that the children of foreign diplomats who are officially still on their native soil in the U.S. are not eligible for birthright citizenship. Virtually everyone else is a birthright citizen.
The same applies to phrases like “a beneficiary of birthright citizenship.” Everyone born in the United States is a beneficiary of birthright citizenship, if we agree that U.S. citizenship is a benefit. But it is not an add-on benefit available particularly to people whose parents were not U.S. citizens.
Birthright citizenship is not a special category for people born to undocumented immigrants or “birthright tourists.” It is the way most U.S. citizens get their citizenship.
Does it matter?
When birthright citizens are discussed as though there were a special subclass of U.S. citizens whose parents were not citizens — rather than the accurate understanding that everyone born in the U.S. is a birthright citizen — it gives a false or misleading impression. This mischaracterization of birthright citizenship can increase suspicion and stereotyping of immigrants, certainly, but it also makes it possible to think of limitations on birthright citizenship as the removal of a special privilege to immigrants rather than a more fundamental attempt to change the U.S. Constitution.
There is admittedly a distinction between statutory birthright citizenship – like that of people born in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories – and constitutionally protected birthright citizenship like that of people born in states. Birthright citizenship to anyone born in the fifty states is protected by the U.S. Constitution; birth in the U.S. territories does not have this hard guarantee.
Birth in a U.S. territory, including Puerto Rico, is protected instead by a statute, not the U.S. Constitution. It is simply a law, and like any laws, it is easier to change than the U.S. Constitution. This difference might allow the “End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act” to become law someday, but various executive orders limiting birthright citizenship for everyone in the U.S. cannot. The EOs violate the U.S. Constitution, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.
This distinction aside, birthright citizenship just describes the kind of citizenship people born in the United States have, not a special category of citizens.
The post Understanding Birthright Citizenship appeared first on PUERTO RICO REPORT.
