A Plan to Renew the Promise of American Life, Plank 2
previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank
Plank 2. Restore consent-based citizenship
Specific Recommendations
2.1. Amend the Immigration Act to restore and affirm the Constitution’s default policy of consent-based citizenship, and thus bring the practice of common-law birthright citizenship into conformity with the original public meaning of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, (1) grant United States citizenship automatically to each of the following descriptions of person, but only to them: (i) the natural child of a U.S. citizen, whether born on U.S. soil or abroad (unless the citizen-parent has never resided in the United States), and (ii) the natural child, born on U.S. soil, of a non-citizen who is a lawful permanent resident in the United States (green card holder) or who is serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces; and (2) cease granting automatic U.S. citizenship to the child, born on U.S. soil, of a tourist or sojourner (visa holder) or unauthorized entrant. Effectuate this policy prospectively, by legislation, without depriving any existing citizen of his or her citizenship. To the extent legally permissible, do it by executive action. If the Supreme Court gets the issue wrong, fix it by legislation, invoking section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or as a last resort by constitutional amendment.
2.2. To promote undivided loyalty and wholehearted commitment to the well-being of our republic, amend the Nationality Act to disallow and discourage dual citizenship. Automatically withdraw U.S. citizenship from any adult verified as holding dual foreign and American citizenship, if that person, after formal notice and a reasonable grace period, has not relinquished the foreign citizenship. But do not penalize anyone who, for whatever reason, voluntarily renounces his U.S. citizenship. Do not impose citizenship relinquishment fees of any kind.
2.3. Reform U.S. immigration laws to secure the borders, protect national security and the public health, and improve the quality of authorized immigration. Specifically, (1) maximize legal immigration by persons who are likely to assimilate and who can offer useful talents, skills, or backgrounds, (2) halt or greatly reduce immigration by any class of persons who are unlikely to assimilate or whose presence in large numbers would disturb the nation’s social, political, or economic tranquillity, including by reducing immigration from specific countries or regions, and (3) stop impressing employers into the service of our immigration agencies. Instead, (4) build and maintain effective physical barriers to prevent unauthorized border crossings, (5) intercept, detain, and promptly deport unauthorized border crossers and visa overstayers, (6) require temporary visitors to check in with immigration agencies on a regular basis, and (7) indefinitely exclude or detain persons claiming political asylum or refugee status until their claims are finally resolved. In doing these things, take care to safeguard the mental and physical well-being of detainees, especially children.
Comments
The purpose of this plank is to restore and reinvigorate American citizenship in light of our founding principles. It tries to do this in three ways. First, by clarifying the meaning of citizenship. Who is and who is not a citizen is a basic question in any republic. Indeed, ‘the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance … a precious heritage … an inestimable acquisition.’ /1
Second, it tries to strengthen citizens’ commitment to our country by reviving the traditional but seemingly lapsed policy of discouraging dual citizenship.
And third, it tries to adopt sensible immigration reforms that reflect our founding principles and protect our shared interests as a people.
At the intersection of these three goals is the contentious issue of birthright citizenship, which has come, since the New Deal, to be understood as requiring the automatic granting of citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil other than the children of foreign sovereigns, diplomats, and occupiers. In other words, it requires the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of foreign tourists, sojourners, and unlawful entrants. Which is absurd and harmful.
I call that post-New Deal understanding of birthright citizenship ‘common-law birthright citizenship’ because it is legally traceable back to English common law and feudal concepts of subjection and perpetual allegiance to the sovereign, concepts that are alien to our founding principles and repugnant to common sense. The consent-based version I call ‘natural-law birthright citizenship.’
Update June 30, 2026: When I first wrote this plank in 2013, I laid out, at great length, the case for why we should reject common-law birthright citizenship and why we do not need a constitutional amendment to do so. Today I am sparing you, dear reader, from having to plough through all that. I’ve deleted that discussion from this page and will hereafter simply direct you instead to the able dissents of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court’s soon-to-be-infamous birthright citizenship case, released today. The dissents in the case include references to many valuable and enlightening legal and historical treatises on the subject. Nothing I said in my 2013 commentary surpasses what you’ll find in those sources.
The short version of my position is that the common-law interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is wrong and harmful and leads to the absurdest consequences because it is based on monarchical rather than republican principles. And therefore, Congress should reject it and replace it with a policy that’s in keeping with our republican principles. Our presumption should be freedom.
Congress should employ a legislative defiance strategy against Trump v. Barbara similar to the one that successfully overturned Roe v. Wade.
How Should We Reform Immigration?
While we are a nation of immigrants, and we should welcome immigrants, we should also secure our borders and define who is a citizen in keeping with our national principles and our national interest. This is common sense. No sane nation would do otherwise.
Why have our immigration laws become controversial since 1965? Because ‘reforms’ made in that year have led to a growing wave of illegal immigration and birth tourism that has disrupted our domestic tranquillity, economic and political. That wave has not been adequately addressed. It is having negative effects on life in our local communities and straining our welfare systems. It is disrupting our job markets and distorting our politics. Importantly, it is warping the census and thus the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College.
To confront these problems, I think we should reform our immigration laws back toward a system that promotes assimilation and keeps criminals, enemies, and those unlikely to assimilate outside our country.
To be clear, we should not close our gates; we should have a wide door and a high wall, and we should welcome the stranger. But we should not go overboard.
In addition to the three specific recommendations of this plank, I would deport illegal aliens currently residing among us. Yes, all of them. Does that mean we must round everyone up in mass raids? No. It means we should deport those who violate our laws and who come to the attention of the authorities. The rest will leave voluntarily, once they see the deportation policy being enforced. (And remember, deportation is current law.) Some will turn around and seek naturalization, which in many cases will be a good and welcome thing. Does it mean we must separate children from their parents? No. Families can remain together voluntarily, in their own country.
Now, as for that wide door. I think we should expand legal immigration as soon as the public clearly supports doing so, if only for national security reasons. A growing population can defend itself more easily than a shrinking one. But it should be a population wholeheartedly committed to the country and its well-being. This is why we should discourage dual citizenship. At present, a slight majority of Americans would prefer to reduce legal immigration, so political prudence would suggest that we leave it at its current level for the time being, and only change it to follow a clear shift in public opinion.
But at all events, we should change the nature of immigration: we should favor immigrants who are likely to assimilate. We should give first preference to people from within our own civilization, in the sense of Samuel Huntington’s famous book on that topic — I mean people from Europe and the nations most influenced by Europe. As a practical matter, it means more immigrants from historically Christian nations (but not just those in Europe) and from Israel, and fewer from Muslim and other states that are not culturally western, regardless of their race or specific religion. This approach should not be viewed as a rejection of other cultures but rather as an affirmation of our own.
Democracy and equal rights and the rule of law are precious and fragile. We weaken them at our peril. Just to be absolutely clear, we should not exclude people based on their race or religion. But we should prefer people who are likely to become culturally American. We should exclude people whose political principles are incompatible with our own. I’m thinking of people who openly reject democracy and support some form of despotism — neo-nazis, communists, radical Islamists, sharia law enthusiasts, supporters of absolute monarchy. If it were within my power, I would never let any such anti-democrats come into the country permanently. And to minimize the risk of their entering, I’d err on the side of minimizing immigration from the places most likely to produce such people.
Additionally, until we get illegal immigration under control, we should reconsider our liberal policy of allowing chain migration, that is, prioritizing family members of green card holders in the legal immigration queue.
Finally, I’d end virtually all federal welfare programs, not just because they are unconstitutional, but also because, in their current form, they are a magnet. Instead, I would adopt policies that strengthen the nation’s economic health (as with this plan), so there are plenty of good jobs for all, including immigrants. No one would suffer needless privation. The states would provide public assistance to those who need it, as they always have. But Congress would and should get out of that business, which it had no right to get into and in which it adds no unique or indispensable value.
If we did all these things, Illegal immigration would shrink to a trickle and the benefits would be clear and substantial: the economy would be much healthier and we’d have a greater measure of domestic tranquillity — a stronger sense of national brotherhood ‘from sea to shining sea.’
Importantly, it would be a brotherhood based, not on religion or race, but rather on our ancient civic faith — our common creed — that all men are created equal.
Note
1/ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898, Chief Justice Fuller dissenting.
Constitutional Amendments
This plank does not require any constitutional amendments, unless the Supreme Court proves recalcitrant, in which case we may need a constitutional amendment clarifying our citizenship policy based on the principle of mutual consent.
Benefits
Permanently resolves the U.S. immigration crisis.
Promotes political peace and domestic tranquillity.
previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank