... One of my critics on the “conservative” Left who once claimed to be an originalist illustrates the point. He says that the simple fact of birthright citizenship being “age-old” makes it somehow sacrosanct. There is not even a pretended appeal to the Constitution. Beyond this, someone with a philosophic education ought to know that it is a mistake to identify the old with the good. Even if it were not, his argument still fails on its own terms. Before the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, America did not have birthright citizenship. Hence the true “age-old” practice—going back to the beginning of the republic—is not to have it. If the old is the good, why is the younger birthright citizenship practice sacrosanct but the prior, and far-older practice of granting citizenship only to the children of citizens and lawful immigrants bad?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the quality of “conservative” argument in 2018. ...
A social compact that can be joined contrary to the will of its existing members is an impossibility, a self-contradiction.
It’s no wonder, then, that only around 30 countries out of nearly 200
practice birthright citizenship. The highest accounting that I have
seen says 33. There are 197 countries in the world (193 UN members, two
observers, and two non-members). Thus 83% of the world’s nations do not
allow birthright citizenship. Those countries that do have a combined
population of 958 million (in all cases, rounding estimates up in order
not to be accused of fudging the numbers in my direction). According to
the UN, the world population is today 7.6 billion. Our “conservatives”
insist that opposition to birthright citizenship is “nativist,
xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, white supremacist” and
more. This means that 6.642 billion of the world’s people (give or take)
must also be “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist,
and white supremacist.” The latter two would truly be something, given
how few of those people are white. ...
More.
