Time to End Birthright Citizenship?
By James Carafano
Washington has apparently rediscovered a legitimate part of the immigration debate, one often treated as the untouchable third rail of the issue—birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors.
Currently, the United States seems to grant citizenship to all children born to parents who are unlawfully in the United States—a practice followed by virtually no other modern nation. The practice raises a problem in principle because it runs against our deep respect for, and valuation of, citizenship.
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors is integral to the immigration policy debate because of what is often called the “anchor-baby” problem. Many feel it is inhumane to deport violators of immigration laws with minor children who are legally American citizens. Estimates of the number of people illegally in the U.S. with children born in the United States vary greatly, but most estimates suggest at least several million—far too many to deport even if the federal government began meticulously enforcing its immigration laws.
Since the United States tried offering a general amnesty in 1986, the size of the unlawful population has steadily grown and while it has dipped in recent years, it still is over three times what it after the 1986 amnesty. Yet, an even more telling fact comes from a recent survey of patients from a Dallas-era hospital, which indicated “70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. These Hispanic women had been having their babies at Parkland without much attention until the recent debate over illegal immigration.”
We don’t envision or advocate taking citizenship away from anyone. Yet it makes sense in principle and in policy to remove this incentive for individuals who, in the future, wish to come to and unlawfully work and reside in the United States. Recently, Sens. Mitch McConnell (R–KY) and Lindsey Graham (R–SC) have suggested doing just that by starting a Constitutional process to modify the 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868), which has been incorrectly interpreted by many to justify the claim of birthright citizenship to children of parents who are illegally inside the United States or are temporary visitors. The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to all those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which everyone agrees excludes the children of diplomats and an 1884 Supreme Court case said excluded many others who did not owe their primary allegiance to the United States.
According to one press report, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who chairs the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the issue, said in a statement yesterday that he has no plans to consider a constitutional amendment. “We can and should address the problem of illegal immigration head-on without amending the Constitution[.]”
Feingold is right, but he is wrong to suggest that clarifying birthright citizenship to exclude children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors can’t be part of that legislative agenda. There is a sound legal argument to be made that the 14th Amendment was widely misinterpreted in an 1898 decision (the same era as Plessy) and that Congress can legislate on this issue without further amending the Constitution. In fact, Heritage first made that argument in 2005 in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. As we have previously argued, clarifying the citizenship issue is a necessary element of immigration reform. Going forward, resolving this issue should be part of a responsible sequence of reforms and a real honest strategy to fix America’s flawed immigration system and broken borders.
America is a sovereign nation. And deciding who comprises the commonwealth is one of the most fundamental components of sovereignty. Abdicating the right to decide issues of citizenship is not a mark of America’s generosity—it is an abdication of the basic responsibilities of sovereignty.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
(Continued)
After MSNBC'S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that "all babies are anchor babies" because "I certainly know my 8-year-old has anchored the heck out of my life," thereby winning this week's witty wordplay contest, she claimed to be stumped on how citizenship could possibly be determined if not by location of birth. "I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves," Harris-Lacewell said portentously, "on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?" (Luckily for Harris-Lacewell, U.S. citizenship is not granted on problem-solving abilities.)
Harris was off and running, babbling: "Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great-grandparents?"
I don't know -- how does Sweden do it? How about Denmark? Maybe we should check the laws of every other country in the universe -- especially the ones liberals are relentlessly demanding we emulate! Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law? Where is The New York Times when we need it?
The Times' editorial denouncing "nativist" conservatives ended with this little homily: "(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison's description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: 'He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.'" Of course, conservatives' objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they're judges, not legislators -- least of all "ideal legislators."
Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench. Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch?
As the Times' own august quote from James Madison indicates, he was referring to "the ideal legislator," not "the ideal Supreme Court justice."
In its haste to call conservatives names, the Times not only gave away that they think judges are supposed to be "legislators" -- a point they've been denying for decades -- but also provided a ringing endorsement for ending birthright citizenship.
Not being an easily frightened nativist like Harris-Lacewell, I think we should look at other countries' laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones.
For example, let's skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism.
Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship? Or (to paraphrase my favorite newspaper) has nativism in American politics become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Democratic circles for a legislator to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign countries and their laws? If so, then Democrats might want to re-read James Madison's description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: "He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations."
"Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings." -- New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010
The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months -- at least I think it's the same editorial -- to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see "Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.")
Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.
Take Sweden -- one of the left's favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.
(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don't see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)
Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden's generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden's welfare policies haven't bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don't grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.
In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a "settled" resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).
Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth -- but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.
(Continued)
to consider but I think it would take effect when it became law. Everyone born before the law would be exempt. Here in California it comes up from time to time that a child that was brought here illegally when they were babies go through the schools and when they get to college there are issues and some have been turned away which I feel is not right. They were not given a choice and some didn't find out until they were asked for birth certificates and they find out at 18. A woman in a smaller city was running for some elected office and found out she was not born in the California as she was lead to believe by her parents. They want to deport her and she is in her 40's. All her kids are legal. She is fighting it. Some interesting arguments in the immigration struggles.
There are quite a few people that will get screwed when we crack down.
People who didn't have a choice to come here, and don't even know that they are illegals until adulthood should be offered a path to citizenship. But their parents should get put on a bus and sent home.
And then once we've cracked down on the illegals we do need to make the process for legal immigration easier.
People always point out the hard working, industrious and *honest* illegal immigrants. Those are the people we want immigrating here legally. We just don't want all the trash that comes over with them when they cross illegally.
I've looked up our immigration laws in the US Code, as well as those of a number of different countries. If anything, US rules are less restrictive than others I've looked at.
The best legal advice I ever got was less advice than a general principal. An attorney once told me if a thing seems wrong, there's a rule or law that says it's wrong - all you have to do is find it. While I can't say all laws are good, in general, the ones that are do follow that pattern. Good laws are enacted to prevent or punish specific wrongs for the greatest good of all. The best of them are plain old common sense, which seems less than common these days.
When you invite someone into your home, unless you're crazy, you want those you invite to be of good character, not a burden to you, and not likely to cause you harm. That is the essence of immigration laws. As my mom used to say, "You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your family.".
A diseased coke whore on welfare, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, may be part of the American family, but that is not the sort of person you would pick as a friend. In a nutshell, that's the essence of what is laid out in immigration laws, not only in the US, but in virtually every other country in the world.
For as bad a rap as America gets sometimes, I doubt there's another country in the world that has as many nonprofits set up to help others, or as many people that donate to such causes. At a certain point, maybe that's a mistake on our part. It certainly is when it reaches a level where our culture of generousity is exploited and abused, then thrown back in our faces with the utmost contempt.
The anchor baby loophole has spiraled out of control, and Congress fiddles while America burns. That loophole definitely needs to be closed. Two things should be done. 1. Close the loophole to prevent further abuse. 2. Give illegal alien parents the option to denounce US citizenship of minor children when they are deported, as they should be.
Our own people are losing their jobs and their homes, then being tossed into the streets. How much of their labor was taxed to provide homes for people who had no right to be here in the first place? How many of those American's homes could have been saved if they had been allowed to retain that portion of the fruits of their own labor?
By my most conservative estimate, illegal aliens cost US taxpayers over $200 billion per year. The number is so large most people can't grasp it on an emotional level without breaking it down into other terms. $200 billion is what it would cost to pay cash for 1,000,000 median priced homes.
I can't afford to buy one million homes for illegal aliens, can you?
As the saying goes, charity starts at home. Let's take care of our own, then see if there's anything left to help someone else.
I mean, there isn't a reason for someone to be sitting on a waiting list for seven years, like I've heard of.
Except for one that I can think of at the moment, and that is over saturation by illegal immigrants slowing legals from coming in.
Anything in high demand results in long waiting lists. That's just the nature of things. Also, as you note, it likely slows down the line's progress when criminals keep cutting in front of the line.
For example, you keep making reservations at your favorite restaurant, only to find you can't be seated because others keep stealing your table. Of course, it would be even worse if management refused to evict them from your table, and the rest of the restaurant's patrons started screaming that you're a bad guy for interrupting the meals of those who took your place. Your dining experience would likely be delayed considerably under those circumstances.
The Heritage Foundation is sick. And no, I don't mean they have a cold sick, I mean they are literally sick. Possibly from drinking the wine of racist hate. Racist hate which prevents them from seeing that they too are at risk of losing US citizenship if it can be proven that their ancestors came here illegally. Because if I remember history correctly, the only true citizens of the US are those of Indian descent. Otherwise, everyone of you is at risk of losing citizenship if you follow their tactics. the burden would be on the immigrant to prove their legal status. Yeah, go ahead and make that retroactive, that should be fun.
BTW, the claim about the US being the only country allowing the granting of citizenship to children born from illegal aliens is false until they can provide a list of countries who deny it's people the right to citizenship.
Bad bad people make up this foundation.
Europeans didn't immigrate to the US, they gave birth to it.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Is that no one is advocating retroactive denials of citizenship.
In a nut shell, The Supreme Court determined in 1898 that only the children of those with an allegiance to the United States get automatic citizenship.
It seems for the last 122 years we've been screwing that up, and getting royally abused for it. Our bad though, we shouldn't have been handing citizenships over like that.
What they are suggesting, is henceforth we stop giving citizenship to illegals, to get rid of anchor babies.