On June 30, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed birthright citizenship, as outlined in the 14th Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s ruling on Trump v. Barbara invalidated Executive Order 14160 — a presidential order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents.
For millions, this decision represented a triumph for immigrant families who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of the liberties enshrined in our Constitution. For even more, it was a predictable rejection by the Supreme Court of a view that the executive branch should solely dictate policy. And for some, such as junior U.S. Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana, it was a sore disappointment.
In an opinion editorial published on July 29 in The Hill, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., laid out his frustrations with the Trump v. Barbara decision, largely in line with what his ideological colleagues had previously expressed. According to Banks, the decision will exacerbate an existing national security crisis that the Biden administration allowed for, as “millions of migrants flooded our country’s borders or were otherwise permitted to enter into the country.” Millions of migrants were granted Temporary Protected Status, and, according to him, others have engaged in “birth tourism” – coming to the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child who will automatically be granted citizenship. The solution? His proposed bill, which would label “birth tourists” as foreign invaders and prevent the children of those he considers foreign invaders from acquiring birthright citizenship. In effect, this legislation would circumvent the court’s decision. It could deny almost any children of undocumented immigrants or temporary residents from claiming their constitutional protections.
Banks’ op-ed features several more ludicrous claims, including that the Mexican government encourages immigration to the United States in order to retake territory ceded at the end of the 1848 Mexican-American War. Another is that the “Chinese Community [sic] Party” has encouraged birth tourism in the Pacific Islands, and as a result, as many as 1.5 million Chinese nationals now have citizenship. Never mind that Mexican immigration has decreased in recent years, or that Chinese immigration to the United States has a long history prior to 1949. To Sen. Banks and other nativists, immigrants are not exercising individual agency, but are rather part of a shady fifth column that must be treated as an invasion force.
Unfortunately, xenophobia and nativism dominate American history.
In the time of the Founding Fathers, several figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin feared a large and unassimilated German population. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Catholic immigrants, especially the Irish, were painted as religious fanatics who sought to overturn the constitutional order — similarly to how some of Sen. Banks' colleagues have painted the American Muslim community. Later, strict limits were placed on Chinese and East Asian immigration and their engagement with civil society. This demonization frequently spurred segments of a panicked society to harass and terrorize those who they believed had wronged them. Here in Indiana, this took shape in the Ku Klux Klan.
Though Banks' bill likely won't make it through committee, much less the Senate or House, his and his colleagues’ claims that children of undocumented immigrants or temporary legal residents are those of "foreign invaders" should concern us. Presenting illegal immigration as a foreign invasion hinders our ability to address the real issues with our immigration system. Furthermore, Bloomington, home to thousands of second-generation immigrants, is within the state he represents. By extension, these people are his constituents, whether he wishes to accept this or not.
When we elect our leaders, we sign a contract that places trust in their ability to lead and protect us. Some turn to scapegoating their own constituents to avoid taking real action. But by overcoming these divisions and accepting our neighbors, we can create a more perfect union.
Remy Hepner (he/him) is a senior studying Political Science and pursuing minors in International Studies and Intelligence Studies. All opinions expressed are his own.
