Zorn: Here's why babies born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens

The courts and common sense tell us it's the right way to interpret the Constitution

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.

The coming renewal of the ‘birthright citizenship’ debate

President-elect Donald Trump is proposing that we amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate “birthright citizenship,” the idea that any baby born within our borders is automatically deemed a citizen.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. . ."

The U.S is one of just a handful of industrialized nations (Canada is another) that confers automatic citizenship at birth, regardless of the naturalization or legal status of the parents.

The constitutional guarantee dates back to the post Civil-War era and was designed to clear up citizenship issues pertaining to former slaves and their children. But even then it also underscored our commitment to being a nation without a permanent population of outsiders, families that remained “foreign” for generations as citizens jealously guarded their prerogatives.

We should be proud that we’re nearly alone in the advanced world in being so welcoming toward immigrants and the contributions of immigrant culture. We should not, as proponents suggest, look enviously upon other nations that have pulled up the drawbridge and doubt our long-standing commitment to strength through assimilation.

Not to say that it sits right that a baby born today to a woman who illegally entered our country yesterday is deemed to be as American as the descendants of those who arrived on the Mayflower. Or that it doesn’t feel like cheating when an estimated 20- to 26,000 pregnant “birth tourists” a year come here legally but for the sole purpose of securing the rights of U.S. citizenship for their offspring.

The guarantee of birthright citizenship (to all but the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading armies) came about in an era when our borders were wide open and international travel was considerably more difficult. When a family came here, it was a reasonable assumption that they intended to throw down roots and stay.

But today it remains a practical way of assuring that we don’t create a large class of permanent stateless residents who never integrate into society or form an allegiance to the U.S.. In other nations the lack of birthright citizenship has created what’s called an “assimilation crisis.”

Some, including some legal scholars, have argued that those in the U.S. without legal authorization are not "subject to the jurisdiction” of our laws as the amendment specifies. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected that argument, noting as recently as 1982 that “the 14th Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a state.”

A conservative, Trump-friendly U.S. Supreme Court could reject such precedent, of course. It would disappoint but not surprise me in the least.

It’s a hoot, I swear

“Songs of Good Cheer” the annual holiday singing party at the Old Town School of Folk Music will be held this Thursday through Sunday. Mary Schmich and I host the event. It includes familiar and unfamiliar songs of the winter holiday season performed by an all-star band of local musicians. After 26 years, it’s a Chicago tradition, and Spotify and Apple Music subscribers can get a feel for it by listening on the stream to our new studio album, which will be on sale at the show.

Here’s a representative video from 2019 of Fred Campeau leading Joe Newberry’s stirring “On This Christmas Day,” a song from the CD he will be leading again this year:

Songbooks provided! Doug George at the Tribune had a nice story on “Songs…” recently and tickets are on sale online and at the Old Town School of Folk Music.

Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses

Could Trump do for health care what Nixon did for China?

Jay G. — Many Americans celebrated the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson due to widespread frustration over how the average person is treated by private health insurers. If this does not awaken normal Americans to think about adopting a western European style of universal healthcare, I don't know what will. (Then again, many of us thought Sandy Hook would result in the passage of some real, common sense gun laws.)

If Donald Trump truly wanted to be "for the little guy," embracing universal health care would be the way for him to do it. Trump could be as corrupt as he likes for his entire term, but if he were to enact a real universal health care plan for all Americans, he'd be a hero.

Zorn — Pretty to think so. I favor a ”Medicare for All” option or a vastly expanded Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), but Republicans are clearly dug in against that. The one glimmer of hope I have about Trump is that he no longer has to care what any of his political allies think. He can’t run for reelection, and once he’s done with his orgy of vengeance he may look for some popular initiatives to get behind.

It’s been said of President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 that it had to be a Republican to take the first major step in reopening diplomatic relations. And it may have to be a Republican who moves us toward a form of universal medical coverage that will cool the widespread anger at for-profit insurance companies.

All that said, of course, assassination is no way to address grievances. Celebrating murder is a bad look.

Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter

Jeff Couch — In “Biden came to his senses and pardoned his son. Spare me the outrage and the umbrage!,” you wrote, "I understand that disappointment and anger. It’s hard to boast about the Democratic Party’s comparative integrity when the sitting president lied repeatedly during the election season that he would not pardon his son."

I very much dislike the usage of "lie" when referring to what might be simply a change of heart. A lie is knowingly telling a mistruth. Changing a position on an issue usually comes with having more information to assess the situation, or a review of the factors influencing the initial position. They are fundamentally different.

We will never have proof of what Biden was thinking when he assured us that he would never pardon his son. He's the only one who knows whether he was being truthful or not.

Mary Beth Lang — Biden didn't "lie" about not pardoning Hunter. He changed his mind. Those close to Trump have already promised to continue crucifying Hunter. He's a symbol of the liberals they love to hate, and he’s an easy target. I would have been angry if Joe hadn’t pardoned him.

Ken Carl — Promising something and breaking that promise does not sound like a bad thing if it is really just changing your mind. If you interpret Biden’s pardon of his son with such kindness, will you offer the same grace when Trump changes his mind? It’s entertaining how people will adapt to or accept questionable behavior for those whose politics they favor. Joe Biden has been pardoning Hunter all his adult life, so this official pardon is not unexpected. Joe did break his word. That may not be a lie, but it’s more than changing his mind.

Zorn — I would give President Biden more grace if he had simply hedged his promise. He sees around political corners well enough to know that there was a good chance that Trump would be elected and would act to further blight the already blighted life of Hunter Biden.

A simple, “I have no plans at this time to do that, next question” would have insulated him from the accusation that he lied. But instead he unequivocally staked out the high road, presumptively for political advantage.

I’m not shocked that a politician would lie, but I stand by my assessment.

Jay G. — In “The Big Reason Why Hunter's Pardon is Justified: Kash Patel,” Ron Filipowski does a great job explaining why Patel’s likely nomination was so troubling to President Biden:

Trump’s appointment of Patel, who has ranted and raved for the past four years on every right-wing podcast in America that he was going to get Hunter Biden for things he has never been prosecuted for. Joe takes that threat seriously. Apparently, the critics either do not, or are ignorant and unaware of exactly who Patel is and what he has pledged to do specific to Hunter. …

I will give the critics in the media and some Dems who have chimed in some benefit of the doubt on the grounds that I don’t think they are aware at all of the things Patel has been saying about Hunter on the right-wing podcast circuit over the past four years. But I’m not sure even if they were aware it would’ve prevented them from clutching their pearls on their moral high ground. It’s far too important to them to feel like everyone is dirty, hypocritical and corrupt except them.

C. Pittman — President Biden should have waited until after Hunter was sentenced and then pardoned him. He could than have said Trump’s choices of Patel to head the FBI and his choice of Pam Bondi to head the U.S. Dept. of Justice caused him to realize that the hounding of Hunter was never going to end and that as a father he couldn't let that happen. Then he should have combined it with blanket pardons for all prosecutors in the Trump impeachment trials who are now at risk, and he could have even included Trump for any crimes up until Jan 20, 2025, since the prosecutions have been dropped.

Zorn — I don’t like the idea of pardoning Trump, but I do like the idea of waiting until after Hunter was sentenced and then including the pardon with a raft of other pardons. I actually prefer commutation of the sentence — the conviction stands but no prison time — to a pardon for offenses that Hunter did, after all, commit. That might have been accompanied by a blanket pardon for any other offenses.

Beth Bales — I was fairly certain, despite his unequivocal denials, that there was no way Biden would let his son go to prison. But a sweeping pardon for all actions going back to 2014? Really? 2014 was the year Hunter was named to the board of directors of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings. President Biden likely fears exposure of shenanigans that occurred to enrich his entire family through shell companies.

This column in Town Hall summarizes those shenanigans. Let's see if Biden also pardons his brother and other family members. Of course, a pardon means you can't take the Fifth Amendment and if you refuse to testify, you can be held in contempt.

Zorn — Oh, Jeez, more “Biden Crime Family!” bleating. The House Republicans tried hard but never connected the dots: Neither Hunter nor Joe nor anyone else in the family was indicted, charged or impeached.

Yes, it was a bad look for Hunter to be exploiting his father’s position to get a sweet gig for which he was otherwise not qualified. But no link was ever established between an official act by Biden and payments to his son.

That said, nothing now stops the Republican House from calling Hunter to testify, and his pardon would make it impossible for him to take the Fifth. If he implicates his father in some nefarious scheme and Joe is subsequently impeached, I’ll be fine with justice being done (unlike the Republicans in the U.S. Senate who cravenly refused to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial).

Jake H. — Using the pardon power to advantage friends and family is presumptively wrong because it's grossly unfair to everyone who isn't in that narrow, privileged circle but who may be equally worthy of mercy.

It would be an obvious conflict of interest for Biden to preside over his son's trial or be on the jury. That same conflict is certainly present here.

President Biden's main argument for the pardon is that Hunter was unfairly singled out. That's plausible in the case of the gun charges, just as it was plausible in the New York State hush-money prosecution of Trump, though not a slam dunk. While the gun crime is rarely prosecuted, it's also rare to have a high-profile person essentially admit to the crime in writing, as Hunter did in his memoir. And even if the gun charges were unfair, I'm not sure the same can be said for the tax evasion charges.

But to frame the blanket pardon as a necessary preemptive force against the abuse we anticipate from Trump and his DOJ endorses the implicit view of the majority in Trump v. U.S. — the shameful presidential immunity case — that the U.S. criminal code and the federal criminal justice apparatus all amount to an infinitely malleable tool of potential oppression and harassment, as though there aren't judges and juries and legal rules that must be rigorously followed and legal standards that must be rigorously satisfied and appeals and due process and so on.

Also, by that logic, Biden should have granted a blanket pardon not just to his son but to anyone else he might reasonably fear would be caught up in Trump's revenge tour.

Finally, we are relying on Republican moderates in the Senate to check Trump, and Biden’s pardon may well weaken their resolve.

Zorn — As noted in my original posting on this, I’m not a fan of the unfettered pardon/commutation power. It strikes me as a violation of the separation of the branches of government as well as of the ideals of democracy. There ought to be some form of bipartisan oversight of pardons, and, at the very least, a ban on nepotism.

That said, I do hope in this case that Biden issues a raft of sweeping pardons to any and all likely targets of Trump’s vindictiveness. News reports suggest that is under consideration.

Artificial writing

John Houck — You took “An interesting, ominous look at the future of prose rendered by artificial intelligence” last week. But while I realize technology is evolving at breakneck speed, I still doubt that journalists and reporters will go extinct in a decade. Artificial Intelligence, for all its marvels, still can’t be on the scene, questioning witnesses or documenting events. It still relies on existing data gathered and curated by human beings.

And it won’t do anyone any good to have robots do all the work if nobody can earn a living to pay for the goods the robots produce.

Mark K. — My vision for a future utopia is that all tasks tied to survival and comfort will be taken over by machines, including the jobs of maintaining and building said machines. Same for governing, as humans will realize their fallibility and AI would be better able to institute and maintain a just and equitable society, and allocate resources in the most efficient and fair way. With money no longer necessary and concerns over making a living resolved, humans would be free to fill their time with creative and expressive pursuits — art of all kinds, exploration, sports, learning and sharing experiences. I know we'll probably never get there and more likely we’ll follow the 99.99% of all species that have existed on Earth into extinction.

Zorn — I didn’t see the ending of Mark’s letter coming! There is a lot to be alarmed about when it comes to AI — the further blurring of the line between truth and lies and the removal of the human element from much of art as well as, perhaps, science and medicine and other fields. The PollyAndrew in me likes to think that when machines can handle certain grunt work in the collection and presentation of facts, it will free up journalists to do deep, analytical, personal and highly useful reporting and writing.

In defense of raising Chicago’s liquor tax

Janet Williams — You wrote that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s “proposal to increase the alcohol tax by 34% to help close a hole in the $17.3 billion city budget is running into stiff opposition as a potential job killer.” I support this increase. The taxes are incredibly low. Big Beverage and Big Alcohol are more powerful than Big Tobacco. I worked with 12 state coalitions on underage drinking and it amazed me as to how small the taxes are and how raising them would not have a tremendous impact on costs — unlike tobacco.

Raising tobacco taxes is proven to decrease consumption of tobacco products. There is limited research on this for alcohol, but we still need to raise the tax.

Steven K— I agree with Janet Williams, and raising the tax would be an acknowledgment of the foremost health crisis that we perpetually keep our heads buried in the sand about, even as we go ballistic over other matters that are comparative blips on the radar screen. Guns and opioids may claim their share of human tragedy, but they are nothing compared to the toll in death and misery that alcohol abuse exacts on our civilization. Odd that no one ever seems to throw their hands to the sky and cry out “Why God, why?” over the alcohol epidemic the way they do about firearms, opiates, vaccination hesitancy, or children being abducted from store parking lots, despite its ravages being so much more prevalent and farther reaching.

Cate Plys — Society doesn't throw up its hands as much about alcohol now because Prohibition manifestly did not work, and unlike opioids, meth, etc., alcohol is also used at a lower level that is tasty, communal and celebratory in a way that those other drugs are not. That and denial, of course.

Re-Joyce at this ingredient!

Patricia Cole — The macaroni and cheese recipe you passed along calls for one cup of heavy cream. Yes I said yes I will Yes.

Enough already with the Kass bashing!

Laurence E Siegel — Re: “The K is silent” Does anyone besides me think Zorn is too obsessed with Kass and should let it go?

Zorn — Yes! I get this from time to time. And my response is that I’m obsessed only with correcting my former colleague’s frequent and damnable lies about the circumstances of his departure from the Tribune. So whenever it comes to my attention that he has bashed the Tribune, the newsroom Guild or me, I clap back with a link to the truth. Otherwise I ignore him.

Curtain trick

B.M. — I don’t understand the hotel hanger hack at all. Is it a joke or something actually useful?

Zorn — It’s not uncommon for hotel curtains not to close fully, but many hotel hangers come with clips meant for pants or skirts. You can use those clips to hold the curtains in place.

The week’s best visual jokes

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Quip of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

Info

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Contact

You can email me here:

I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.

Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.

If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.

Help?

If you’re having troubles with Substack — delivery, billing and so forth — first try “Picayune Sentinel Substack help, Frequently Asked Questions.” If that doesn’t work check out the Substack help page. And if that doesn’t work, shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to help.