Last week, the Daily Wire broke yet another story demonstrating the ongoing crisis at the US-Mexico border, in which a Venezuelan family (a three year old daughter) purposely crossed the Rio Grande while the wife was in labor, to have the new baby on American soil. “To be that far in your pregnancy, they have to know more or less when she is going to give birth in order to cross on this side and cross here in the United States,” explained Lt. Chris Olivarez, Texas Department of Public Safety, as per Daily Wire, after translating a conversation he and the father had. Olivarez went on to confirm that the baby is now a legal US citizen due to the mere fact of being born just moments after his mother crossed the US-Mexico line. Not only does this make it exceptionally easy for the rest of the family to be allowed to stay in the US, but they are very likely to use up myriads of welfare as well. Thanks to the misinterpretation of the fourteenth amendment, created in the context of granting freed slaves citizenship, birthright citizenship has become a recent issue when it comes to preventing the mass influx of illegals into the US. It’s time for the US to learn from other countries how to not be afraid to stricten our citizenship laws. Following are some aspects of countries that have reasonable policies centered around the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens, and a common denominator between all countries listed. 

Hungary has recently attracted the leftist journalists because of the controversy surrounding things Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a conservative, has said and done. Which is why it is included in this list. Of course, there is a 2018 bill Orbán signed off on to combat illegal migration, that the Left went up in arms about. “The Stop Soros Legislative Package” was mainly accused of “[creating] a new category of crime, called “promoting and supporting illegal migration” — essentially, banning individuals and organizations from providing any kind of assistance to undocumented immigrants.”. Beauchamp, senior correspondent at Vox goes on to say “in theory, the government could arrest someone who provides food to an undocumented migrant on the street or attends a political rally in favor of their rights.”, which is not anything like what the act actually says. Organizations that "propagate and support mass migration”, meaning people who illegally, and or secretly cross over the Hungarian border, and don't proceed to claim asylum, are “required to register” with the Hungarian Government. As if the authors of this bill saw the headlines about “New Bill Makes it ILLEGAL for Anyone to Help the Poor Migrants” coming, they say in the very next line “Mandatory registration is not a criminal-law instrument, but ensures the transparency of the operation of organizations propagating mass migration.”. Quite literally, the bill says that this is not because they are currently suspected of doing anything criminal, nor is this a punishment for committing any infraction, but it is to make sure these organizations are always doing the right thing, and not trafficking migrants into the borders of Hungary. Additionally, they are not targeting private citizens, like the news media is making it sound like. If a doctor walks up to an illegal and gives him a granola bar, the Hungarian police aren’t going to come out of nowhere and start yelling at that doctor to put his hands where they can be seen. Only large organizations are being monitored. 

Although Japan’s biggest source of illegal immigrants comes from people overstaying various types of visas and “landing permissions” due to the fact that it benefits geographically considering its status as an archipelago, its strict immigration policy has helped greatly reduce and control illegal migrants remaining in the borders of the country. In The Nationality Law, Japan’s government gives specific qualifications as to what constitutes an alien being naturalized. These are as follows: 

Lived in Japan for at least 5 years 
At least 20 years old
Has the mental capacity to follow the law of the land (proven based on the aliens criminal history in his old country)
Demonstrates a desire to uphold society’s morals 
Can make money to live in a shelter 
Citizenship will result in the loss of existing citizenship, or alien is stateless
Has never taken part in an effort to overthrow the Japanese government
Not all of these are applicable and wouldn't be functional to America’s structure and people. Japan’s rule of having citizenship from only one country may make sense in their situation as a more ethnically connected country. Their culture comes from their history as one people, not from being known as a melting pot of different cultures entering into the country at different times in their history. Although it is understandable why a country would implement a “no dual citizenship” policy, when speaking of America, dual citizenship has its place in today’s society. Reasons such as less of a chance of spies, or proof of commitment to one country and one country only are compelling to one debating what side of the argument they should be on. Immigrants coming from different countries into America often leave family behind to do so. Whether leaving them with the intention of making money to bring them over one day as well, or of leaving their parents to pursue a new, more prosperous life, it makes it much easier to go back and visit when the immigrant is still a citizen in their country of origin. When considering the other 5 requirements Japan has on the books, they have all been proven effective in regulating and avoiding the loitering of illegals in Japanese land. 

Despite being in an area prone to a high number of migration, movement, and refugees, Germany manages quite well when compared to the world stage when it comes to these issues. Although correlation doesn’t equal causation, Germany’s number of illegals coming in at only about 90 thousand between January and September of 2023 can be attributed to its laws, which are notably stricter than the United States’. If a couple is residing legally in Germany, but they have not obtained citizenship (an example being that they are residing there on valid visas), their child  can still obtain German citizenship under certain conditions. According to Germany’s Federal Foreign Office, a child of a noncitizen, but who is still born in Germany is considered a citizen only if “one of the parents has been legally and habitually resident in Germany for eight years and has a permanent right of residence.”. This easily eliminates the chance of any illegal crossing the border with no legitimate claim to asylum or refugee status, having a child, and therefore leaving Germany accountable for the new German citizen. Securing the border is not the only way to prevent the mass addition of foreign nationals into the country, but giving attention to visa holders will also help solve the problem. If implemented in the USA, there will no doubt be a massive decrease in cases, like the one about the Venezuelan family above, because illegals will see the trek from the Latin subcontinent as useless, and a waste of time. 

Two often unheard of principles in the immigration/citizenship discussion are jus sanguinis and jus soli, Latin for right of blood, and right of the soil, respectively. Sanguinis refers to the policy of obtaining citizenship at birth if at least one parent belongs to that country, while soli refers to obtaining automatic citizenship at birth if the baby is born on the territory of the country. While all countries with Jus sanguinis set the number of parents that have citizenship to one, Jus Soli exists on a spectrum. The United States, a mix of a jus soli and sanguinis nation, has practically no limits to this rule when it comes to illegal migrants. In their transitions from sanguinis to more soli nations, Germany and Japan, as described above, have various boxes that need to be checked before the baby is considered a citizen under jus soli. Once again considering America’s existence as the most culturally and ethnically diverse nation, jus sanguinis may not be the policy to strengthen, which is where Hungary’s laws would have to differ from America’s. The United States simply needs to strengthen its law of jus soli by implementing some of the restrictions and conditions described above where they are fit. 

All in all, the policies discussed would not fit exactly into the American puzzle when her unique status and role on the world stage are taken into consideration. However, if they were to be tweaked to better support our policy of illegal immigration and citizenship of babies of an illegal family, the ideas of Hungary, Germany, and Japan would without a doubt contribute greatly to reforms that will be made by the next competent president (who is willing to do so). It’s time to trash the modern idea that placing any limits on immigration, asylum, and influxes of refugees is bigoted. To foreign nationals from all places around the world, the United States is the most open and accepting country. If we, as citizens keep letting the ruling class dissolve our borders, our identity as a nation will also disappear.