Loren Lippincott
When Glen Valley Foods of Omaha was raided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on June 10 of this year, 76 illegal aliens were apprehended. Within a week 13 were deported and 63 others were placed in the Lincoln Detention Center. Two days later all 76 of those now open positions were applied for by local legal residents. Pew Research estimates Nebraska currently has more than 40,000 illegals. This is a huge problem because across the nation Illegals commit 18 percent of the fraud crimes, 22 percent of murders, 29 percent of drug trafficking, 33 percent of money laundering and 72 percent of illegal drug possession (U.S. Government statistics 2017).
Currently there is a debate over birthright citizenship which is defined as the automatic granting of citizenship to individuals born in the U.S., regardless of where their parents are from. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” However, there is wide disagreement over whether the amendment is meant to apply to all children born on American soil, whether their parents are here legally or not. Therefore, under the current circumstances there is a serious need for clarification or elimination of the rule.
As it is currently applied, birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration by allowing undocumented immigrants to secure U.S. citizenship for their children born on American soil. This creates a loophole where children, often referred to as “anchor babies,” can later sponsor family members for legal residency, thus encouraging unauthorized border crossings. Routinely, pregnant women cross the border in order to give birth in the U.S., ensuring their child’s citizenship. “Birth tourism” has also become a trend. Foreign nationals travel to the U.S. on temporary visas to give birth, securing citizenship for their children. A 2015 study estimated thousands of such births occur annually, particularly from countries like China and Russia, with businesses facilitating the process.
Since citizen children of illegal immigrants are entitled to public benefits like education, healthcare and welfare, birthright citizenship places a significant financial burden on taxpayers. For instance, the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2010 that illegal immigration, including costs tied to citizen children, costs taxpayers hundreds of billions annually, with education being a major expense. These costs divert resources from legal residents and citizens. Furthermore, birthright citizenship complicates immigration enforcement. Granting citizenship to such children creates legal and emotional barriers to deporting their parents, since separating families raises humanitarian concerns. This can lead to policies like “catch and release” or deferred deportation, which weaken border security and incentivize further illegal immigration. Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom have restricted or eliminated birthright citizenship and have seen their immigration laws enforced more stringently without the complication of citizen children.
Since the amendment contains the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” many argue it was not intended to grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors. Ratified in 1868, the amendment was intended to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, not for those whose parents owe allegiance to foreign governments. Legal scholars like John Eastman have argued that the phrase implies full political allegiance, which excludes children of illegals or diplomats, for that matter. Therefore, the current application stretches the amendment’s original intent, and a reinterpretation or legislative clarification could restrict its scope without requiring outright repeal.
Most importantly, birthright citizenship is a risk to national security. There have been cases in which foreign nationals have used U.S. citizenship obtained through birth to gain access to sensitive systems or evade scrutiny. The U.S. and Canada are the only two developed countries that share this wide open application of birthright citizenship. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, France and Australia require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident for a child to be granted citizenship.
This better balances national interests and provides better immigration control. Aligning U.S. policy with these nations would reduce incentives for illegal immigration while maintaining fairness for legal residents and maintaining our national security and economy.
Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.