.jpg)
In my last article I explored key reasons anti-immigration proponents typically use to promote ending automatic birthright citizenship, a core American value enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
This idea was recently revived by an article authored by popular conservative columnist George Will. He suggested ending the practice of giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. And Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) re-introduced (HR 1868), the “Birthright Citizenship Act” on May 29, 2009. This bill would deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to not only llegal immigrants, but even temporary immigrants here on a visa.
We will examine this proposal from the perspective of constitutionality, discrimination, xenophobia, historical evidence, and certain practical matters.
- First, ending birthright citizenship hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”. Most constitutional scholars interpret this phrase as “subject to the obedience of”. Therefore, since even illegal aliens must obey U.S. law (although they are breaking it) there is little doubt they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and are protected by the 14th Amendment. This interpretation is also supported by common usage of the phrase. For example, when we say someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, this means they must follow the rules and regulations of that court, whether or not they agree with those rules. Therefore, ending birthright citizenship is on very weak ground based on a purely constitutional argument
- The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to end the debate about who is a citizen and who is not by a simple objective rule: are you born in the U.S. or not? Previously, citizenship was used to discriminate against Chinese, Gypsies, and others that opponents deemed unworthy of citizenship. The best example was the infamous Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court which attempted to deny citizenship to freed slaves. Some argue that without the 14th Amendment citizenship would devolve into the latest racist legislation of the day. This fear is supported by racist comments by former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, and by recent “anchor baby” rhetoric by nativist groups, like V-Dare, who would seek to end the birthright citizenship of such children. These children, apparently include Republican Governor Bobby Jindal and U.S. Senator Pete Domenici.
- Historically, an examination of the actual text of the debates surrounding the passage of the 14th Amendment show that the framers of this amendment clearly understood the implications, in contrast to George Will’s op-ed on this specific point.
- If we move to a birthright by blood (jus sanguinis) system, parents would need a new immigration bureaucracy to establish the citizenship of their child. This would impose a huge burden on the immigration system to adjudicate their status. Witness the senseless attempts by the “Birthers” and others on the far right to delegitimize the citizenship of President Obama. These antics demonstrate how this proposal would likely require establishing a national registry of citizens and hiring hundreds of immigration professionals.
- Repealing the 14th Amendment or legislating around it would result in a new group of “stateless people”. For example, U.S. born children of asylees would have no citizenship under this scenario.
- Finally, there is no real evidence that eliminating birthright citizenship will reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants. According to most studies, illegals come here for jobs and economic opportunities unavailable in their home countries.
These arguments are summarized in a September 2009 Immigration Policy Center (IPC) article, entitled: “Made in America: Myths and Facts About Birthright Citizenship.” I encourage you to download this article, available at the United States Association of Immigrants and the IPC.
Based on this analysis, I firmly believe that ending birthright citizenship would be a tragic and wrongheaded mistake. In this case, I find myself in rare agreement with Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) who recently wrote,
“While I'm open to persuasion, right now I just don't buy the argument that having U.S.-citizen children is a significant enough magnet — as opposed to easy access to jobs or coming to join family members — to persuade people to move here illegally.”
If restrictionist groups, including the CIS, want to block immigration reform, modifying the 14th amendment is clearly not an avenue for compromise from virtually any perspective. I hope the IPC article puts this proposal to rest once and for all.
One argument put forth by 14th Amendment defenders seems to argue for reform. Ending birthright citizenship will result in a class of people without legal U.S. residency who:
“… would be forced to work in underground economies and live in unstable, clandestine conditions, a situation that encourages crime and discourages becoming part of the broader American culture.”
Unfortunately, this describes the situation we have with regard to illegal immigrants today. Isn’t this the primary motivation to complete the work of comprehensive immigration reform?
What do you think?
Comments
“Sex With an Illegal Immigrant”
An illegal immigrant picks up a hooker. “Hey, how much you charge for da hour?” he asks.
“$100,” she replies.
In broken English, he says, “Do you do immigrant style?”
“No,” she says.
“I pay you $200 to do immigrant style.”
“No,” she says, not knowing what immigrant style is.
“I pay you $300.”
“No,” she says.
“I pay you $400.”
“No,” she says.
So finally he says, “OK, I pay $1,000 to do immigrant style.”
She thinks, “Well, I’ve been in the game for over 10 years now. I’ve had every kind of request from weirdoes from every part of the world. How bad could immigrant style be?”
So she agrees and has sex with him. Finally, they finish and exhausted, the hooker turns to him and says, “Hey, I was expecting something perverted and disgusting. But that was not so bad. So, what exactly is immigrant style?”
The illegal immigrant replies, “You send bill to Government.”
AND THAT, MY FRIENDLY TAXPAYERS, IS EXACTLY HOW THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE SCREW
What do I think? I think that a) you haven't provided any evidence that there isn't any evidence people come here to have babies, and b) even if that wasn't a magnet (a claim which - as someone who went to England to bear her child before they banned birthright - I find laughably naive), getting all the benefits of US citizenship without paying for them obviously is.
Why couldn't the Amendment be modified as part of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a guest worker program. I have worked hard and spent a lot of money to keep my nanny legal since we brought her here with us from overseas. We file all necessary paperwork with CIS, play her health insurance, social security, unemployment, federal and state taxes. She has a friend who is paid under the table, is pregnant and will have her baby at Stanford University Medical Center paid for by taxpayers. That irritates me a lot! If we could regulate these workers, they wouldn't have an economic advantage over legal citizens, because we could require employers to pay benefits and declare their wages.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!