During his campaign, Donald Trump vowed to aggressively ramp up immigration enforcement by implementing “extreme vetting,” building a wall along the southern border, cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” and creating a “deportation force.” A new paper by Cato scholar Matthew Feeney argues that there are ample reasons for concern over how such efforts will impact America’s law enforcement agencies and Americans’ civil liberties. Feeney suggests that policymakers can mitigate the risks of the immigration agenda by strengthening legal protections on the border and limiting federal involvement in state and local policing.
President Trump has announced that he plans an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of noncitizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil. In addition to being constitutionally questionable, such an order would harm all Americans, not just the children or grandchildren of noncitizens, according to Cato scholar David Bier. “Birthright citizenship is good for the United States,” says Bier. “It guarantees that everyone who is born in America believes that they are Americans, which is the single best policy for promoting assimilation.”
- “Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Just the Law, It’s Crucial to Assimilation in the U.S,” by Alex Nowrasteh
- “Trump’s Nationalism vs. Itself,” by David Bier
- “Birthright Citizenship: An American Idea That Works,” by Alex Nowrasteh
- “Is Birthright Citizenship Constitutionally Required?,” by Ilya Shapiro