It is customary to distinguish between two methods of affiliation, that is, the acquisition of citizenship upon birth. The first is based on the right of blood (jus sanguinis) - a child becomes a citizen if his parents (or one of them) have the citizenship of a given country. The second is based on the right of the soil (jus soli), in which citizenship is granted on the very fact of birth in the country.
US President Donald Trump decided to break this business, finding that the right of the soil has become a source of abuse and debauchery. He stated: “We are the only country in the world where a person comes, gives birth to a child, and this child automatically becomes a citizen with all the relevant privileges. This is ridiculous, just ridiculous. And it should stop.
And when asked whether it would be easy to do it — the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Congress, then yes — Trump answered that there were no problems. “I have always been told that in order to do this it will be necessary to amend the Constitution. And you know what? Not necessary". From his point of view, it is enough to issue a presidential decree, and this decree is already in development. In addition, this is not his personal fantasy - he said that this idea has already been discussed with advisers.
If we talk about the purely legal side of the matter, then perhaps the optimism of the president is premature. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution, adopted on July 9, 1868, states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to these jurisdictions are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live." What is considered an unequivocal statement of the right of the soil. Accordingly, in order to abolish the right of the soil, it is necessary to repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which is quite troublesome. Perhaps, Trump expects that with the current updated composition of the Supreme Court, a presidential decree will also be rolled out. True, man proposes, and God disposes.
Another thing is possible: the president does not go so deeply into legal subtleties, but he remembers that November 6 is a congressional election, and believes that a week before the event, on which so much depends, including on Trump's personal fate, it is necessary to throw in something powerful and kind. The promise to abolish the right of the soil complies with such a requirement.
In any case, part of the electorate will fully support such an undertaking. Autochthons from the provinces do not like the order in which the benefits paid by their taxes (public consumption funds, as they said in the USSR) go to people whose only merit to America is that they were able to be born on its territory. Reports of developing “baby tourism” - an industry that is booming due to the growing middle and upper classes in Russia and China - also do not have the American workers to the newly-born soil scientists. The mentality of “they don’t peck at money, and we don’t have enough for vodka” can have great power even in the USA.
On the other hand, the right of the soil has a long history in the USA, from which it is impossible not to dismiss. The American Constitution is generally rich in remnants dating back to past centuries. Let us recall at least the indirect presidential elections (in the XVIII century, under the then means, it would have failed otherwise) or the notorious Second Amendment on the right to a weapon. In the situation of the frontier, when the state considered that there wasn’t, the right to bear arms freely (and by the way, the Lynch Court) was a condition for survival. The Cossacks lived the same way. But the frontier is long gone, but a relic in the form of the Second Amendment remains. That causes a lot of problems, and absolutely unsolvable.
The same with the soil right. Until relatively recently (not to mention the XVIII-XIX centuries), America was geographically damned where, and the man who crossed the ocean remained there forever. To go back is terribly difficult and terribly expensive. Therefore, a child born in the United States did not disappear from the United States, except to the next world. What to do with it? Or into slavery (also took place), or to US citizens. With the abolition of slavery - only in citizens. In those ancient times for natural geographic reasons they did not hear anything about “baby tourism”.
Now everything is different, but tradition is the soul of the powers. Including the tradition of soil law. So a presidential decree is unlikely to be resolved. By the way, does Trump want to abolish the Second Amendment by a simple decree? After all, also an obvious relic.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.