When the great singer Nat “King’’ Cole moved into an exclusive Los Angeles residential district in the late 1940s, he was confronted by angry residents who informed him they didn’t want any “undesirable people’’ entering the neighborhood.
Cole, deemed undesirable by those folks because of his black skin, responded, “Neither do I. If I see anybody undesirable coming in here, I’ll be the first to complain.”
Today, America’s ever-expanding list of undesirables includes immigrants, even their offspring who were born here and are, in the eyes of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, United States citizens.
That designation is not tolerable for a pair of Kentucky lawmakers who, unwilling to leave well enough alone, are seeking to render these men and women, or more likely, boys and girls, without a country.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Bowling Green, and Rep. Andy “It’s Not A Sin To Be White’’ Barr, R-Lexington, who is running to join Paul in the upper chamber, have filed separate constitutional amendments intended to end the prevalence of so-called birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to anyone born in these United States.
In late June the justices, in a case titled Trump v. Barbara, struck down an executive order issued by President-cum-Dictator Donald J. Trump directed at ending birthright citizenship, citing language in the 14th Amendment that confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Both Paul and Barr filed their amendments before the high court’s decision, perhaps anticipating the justices might screw up and follow the precise language of the Constitution (mistakes do happen).
To their chagrin, they were proved right.
That all sounds pretty clear. But three right-wing justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – exhibiting questionable reading abilities, dissented. Regardless, the long-standing practice has been affirmed, even though it was a centerpiece of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda. As the Lord of Mar-a-Lago asserted at one point, “The US cannot live with the shackles of Birthright Citizenship. It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable, and no other Country in the World, of consequence, does it!”
Trump wants it done and both Paul and Barr are wading into the breach. As Paul humbly noted, he’s there “in case the Supreme Court fails to address this issue correctly.’’
“For too long, birthright citizenship has been a powerful incentive for illegal immigration and birth tourism,’’ Paul said on X. “That’s not what the Framers intended, and it’s not what the rule of law demands. My Constitutional Amendment ends automatic citizenship unless a parent is an American citizen, legal resident, or in the military.’’
Now, permit me to offer a simple bit of advice: Anytime a politician like Paul designs to speak on the intent of Jimmy Madison and the boys who devised the Constitution, who have been dead for about 200 years so they can’t speak for themselves without a Ouija board, run, don’t walk, to the nearest exit.
As David J. Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, wrote in March 2018, “…not only were the Founders opposed to restricting the free movement of people into the United States, but they opposed restrictions on citizenship that they felt would discourage immigrants from using that freedom. Madison spoke of ‘great numbers’ who would wish to come to the United States.’’
In fact, the United States maintained open borders — including, obviously, for those seeking to take advantage of birthright citizenship — until 1875 with the misbegotten passage of the Page Act, which banned Chinese women from entering the country for fear they would become prostitutes. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, banning virtually all immigration from China until the law’s repeal in 1943, followed shortly thereafter.
If the U.S. had chosen to prohibit birthright citizenship, it could have said so in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in July 1868. It chose not to do so. The U.S. maintained open borders, except for China, until the Immigration Act of 1917.
So, what rule of law is being broken?
The fact, which Paul and Barr choose to ignore, is that the United States needs the beneficiaries of birthright citizenship and more in a nation of a declining birthrate while simultaneously seeking to expand its economic horizons.
According to the Pew Research Center, mothers who were unauthorized immigrants or held legal temporary status in the U.S. accounted for the birth of 320,000 babies in 2023, representing about nine percent of all 3.6 million births that year. Those numbers arrive at a time when the nation’s overall fertility rate has slowed to a crawl.
A recent report by the Institute for Family Studies found U.S. population growth has abruptly slowed in recent years, driven in large part by fertility rates collapsing to record lows. If fertility rates continue their recent descent, U.S. population will peak around 351 million and begin declining in the 2050s.
Unless American women begin having babies on a grand scale — and there’s no reason to expect that to occur despite the urgings of Vice President JD Vance — there will be long-term effects on the U.S. economy and society. Fewer births mean fewer future workers, consumers and taxpayers, potentially straining Social Security, Medicare, and overall economic growth. The population decline also affects housing demand, education systems and political representation.
Birthright citizenship and immigration in general aren’t killing America, as Trump and his cohorts would have you believe, it’s sustaining it.
Paul, Barr and the like want the United States to operate like some exclusive club with a secret handshake and password to gain entry while belittling and devaluing those who are poised to keep this country running.
But more to the point, what possible harm can be derived by letting these folks become American citizens, remain in the country if they choose and contribute to the general welfare? America may be exceptional, although that is open to increasing debate, but it doesn’t have all the answers and newcomers can obviously provide needed insight.
As noted by the American Immigration Council:
“Birthright citizenship embodies deeply held American ideals of fairness, opportunity, and nondiscrimination. It affirms that citizenship is not inherited through bloodlines or ancestry, but grounded in shared commitment and equal rights. Most countries in the Western Hemisphere recognize some form of birthright citizenship. Ending it would make the United States an outlier and betray a longstanding constitutional tradition.’’
Residents of the Hancock Park neighborhood of LA eventually came to embrace the smooth-voiced Nat Cole (who could also play a mean piano, catch him trading notes with the guitarist Les Paul at Jazz at the Philharmonic in LA in 1944. You can thank me later). Maybe Paul and Barr can someday embrace their fellow United States citizens.
As Mark Twain once said, “I hope it. But I doubt it.’’