Bob Somerby, in his Daily Howler, is as hard on “liberal” reporters and commentators as he is on right-wingers. He hates sloppy thinking and writing, wherever it comes from, and knee-jerk reactions from legs of any political stripe drive him to distraction. I’m generally sympathetic, though I think he can come off a bit schoolmarmish at times, missing the crime for the peccadilloes (let’s leave the trees and forest be).
Yesterday Somerby went off on Tim Egan of the New York Times. Egan quoted Rand Paul (our political media’s Kook of the Month):
“We’re the only country I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen,” Paul told a Russian broadcaster. “And I think that should stop also.”
Egan then went on to speculate freely:
Of course, race has nothing to do with it, these situational constitutionalists say. But you have to wonder if their concern over citizens by birth would have extended to big Irish Catholic families of 100 years ago, some of whom came to the United States through illegal border crossings from Canada.
Somerby lets fly:
Egan is held in chains of bondage too. He feels no obligation to speak to the merits of Paul’s position. But he does feel forced to wonder what Paul might have said about something else, a century ago.
“You have to wonder” about that, he says. But actually, no—you don’t have to. Instead, you can actually speak to the merits of the current case. Egan never does.
…
Paul is quoted making a factual claim about other countries—a claim Egan never disputes. Nor does Egan ever say why it makes sense, in the abstract, to grant citizenship to newborns in the way we do—in a way no other country would, if Paul’s assertion is accurate.
Somerby accuses Egan of playing the race card with Paul rather than arguing the merits. For Somerby, Paul’s statement raises two questions: (1) Is Paul correct about the policy of other countries regarding citizenship by birth? (2) In the case of the US, does the constitutional gift of citizenship to anyone born in the US make sense?
Let’s leave the second for anyone who cares to argue about it. The first is just a research task. Ignore Paul’s additional clause about “coming in illegally.” No country “allows” people to enter illegally, even if they do it. If it happens, it’s a crime. But if a child is born to that person who entered the country illegally, or entered legally and stayed illegally—well, that’s part of what the citizenship laws address.
A few minutes of internet searching turned up a document, dated March 2001, giving the requirements for citizenship for 206 countries. It turns out 48 countries (including the US) make citizenship available to a “[c]hild born in the territory of [country], regardless of the nationality of the parents.” (Again, Paul’s remark about illegal entry is beside the point. Much as he seems intent on conflating them, the two issues—illegal entry and citizenship by birth—are not joined at the hip.) Some of these countries exclude children of “foreigners in the service of their country” or children “born to certain diplomatic personnel”; and a few require registration or confirmation of citizenship upon reaching majority (18 or 21 years of age).
Here are the 48 countries, based on my reading of the aforementioned document:
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Argentina
- Barbados
- Belize
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Canada
- Central African Republic
- Chile
- Costa Rica
- Cuba
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- France
- Gambia
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Guinea-Bissau
- Guyana
- Honduras
- India
- Ireland
- Jamaica
- Kenya
- Lesotho
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- St. Kitts and Nevis
- St. Lucia
- St. Vincent and the Grenadines
- Samoa
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tuvalu
- United States
- Uruguay
- Vanuatu
- Venezuela
- Zambia
Several other countries (Australia among them) allowed citizenship by birth in the past, but no longer do. Also, this list does not include countries that offer citizenship to children born of stateless parents or persons of no known nationality.
There, that wasn’t so hard.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether Rand Paul makes a compelling point. It seems clear to me he was trying to place the United States outside the circle of all other countries in its policy on conferring citizenship to any child born in its territory. If he was not “wrong” (and, given the sloppiness of his statement, it would be hard to establish “veracity” with any confidence), it would appear he was misleading his listeners, intentionally or not.
