Reconsidering U.S. citizenship

Re “On ‘birthright’ citizenship,” Editorial, Aug. 25

I am pleased to read that The Times editorial board agrees that we must secure our border. Most Americans would heartily endorse an immigration plan that first secures the border and then lays out a plan for people to work toward earning citizenship.

I disagree with The Times’ stance on “birthright” citizenship. The 14th Amendment was aimed at ensuring citizenship to former slaves; now, it is being exploited by foreign nationals seeking to take advantage of American generosity.

This is not just about Central and South Americans. The Times has run numerous articles about the “birth hotels” frequented by mainly Chinese women in Southern California.

We could stop this divisiveness over immigration by securing the border and developing a fair plan to award citizenship. Donald Trump is unrealistic on deportation, but his frustration with our feckless politicians resonates with many Americans.

Rick Kern

Incline Village, Nev.

There have been since before the founding of the republic two ways one could become a natural-born citizen: jus soli (by birth on American soil) or jus sanguinis (by being born to a parent who was a citizen).

Trump and many other Republicans told us not long ago that Barack Obama was not a naturalborn U.S. citizen (and therefore not legitimately president) because they allege he was born in Kenya. No one disputes that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when her son was born.

So Trump and his ilk wanted to throw out jus sanguinis, the law of citizenship based on ancestry.

Now Trump and several prominent Republicans want to throw out jus soli (birthright citizenship) too? If they have their way, we would have no citizens at all, except naturalized immigrants, and no one who was qualified to become president.

That people so irresponsible are allowed out in public, much less considered for high office, is appalling.

Paul Spickard

Goleta, Calif.