Posted on 08/27/2007 6:15:23 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
WASHINGTON -- For decades, immigration officials have granted U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil.
But Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., wants to see that practice end for children of illegal immigrants.
"Birthright citizenship is one of those things that has become a magnet for illegal immigrants to come over here," said Rep. Deal, who has filed a bill that would restrict birthright citizenship to children that have at least one parent with legal resident status or U.S. citizenship.
At the crux of the issue is a clause in the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 after the Civil War with freed slaves in mind, that granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
That last clause -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- has many conservatives and border-control activists arguing that the amendment was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants.
But several immigrant-rights advocates say Rep. Deal's bill is "un-American" and unfairly targeting Hispanics.
"He's proposing to change the Constitution to accommodate his anti-immigrant and xenophobic beliefs," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. "He needs to work on ways to ensure we have a robust immigration policy to meet the economic needs of Georgia."
Stephen Fotopulos, policy director for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, added that the bill "violates the most basic premise of what it is to be an American."
"None of us chose to be born here, who our parents are and how they got here," he said.
Rep. Deal, whose Northwest Georgia district is heavily Hispanic, said the United States is an anomaly in a world where 122 countries do not grant birthright citizenship, including all of Europe, while 33 do, with the United States being the largest.
He has introduced similar bills three previous years, and though he acknowledges that his bill likely will not be brought up for consideration, especially with Democrats controlling the House, he said his cause is gaining momentum, with 89 co-sponsors to the bill, all Republican, the most ever.
"I think the climate is changing," Rep. Deal said. "Illegal immigration has become more of a national concern than it has been in the past."
Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., one of the co-sponsors, said the legislation would be a sorely needed deterrent to illegal immigration, particularly with comprehensive immigration reform stonewalled in Congress.
Children of illegal immigrants, so-called "anchor babies," can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency once they reach adulthood.
"Clearly we need to send word all throughout Central and South America that if you have a baby in this country and you're not a U.S. citizen, (it) doesn't mean they're going to be a citizen," Rep. Wamp said. "This is not designed to be mean, it's just designed to basically curtail illegal immigration."
Legal experts disagree on the constitutional merits of Rep. Deal's bill.
Peter J. Spiro, a constitutional and immigration law professor at Temple University who testified in 2005 before Congress on birthright citizenship, said similar legislation has been introduced since the mid-1990s and gone nowhere.
"The government has always assumed that these children have citizenship at birth," he said. "In theory, the executive branch could start denying citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, but there's never been any suggestion within the executive branch of that happening."
Even if the bill were to pass, he said, the judicial system would likely strike it down, ruling that a constitutional amendment, which needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, would be required to change the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship provision.
"It's pretty clear that nonwithstanding a Supreme Court precedent on the amendment, it is a constitutional rule," Mr. Spiro said.
But John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law, who also testified before Congress in 2005 on the issue, said he believes the provision can be changed statutorily by Congress without a constitutional amendment.
He said the 14th Amendment has been misunderstood by immigration officials and the courts since the 1950s, when birthright citizenship began being granted on a wide scale to illegal immigrants.
"For the people that wrote that clause, there was a very well-defined distinction of sovereign jurisdiction," Mr. Eastman said. "Since the constitution doesn't give birthright citizenship, then of course (a change) can be done statutorily."
Mr. Eastman added that any immigration reform package that includes a guest worker program will have to address birthright citizenship.
"It's a big issue whether a child must stay here as a U.S. citizen or go home," he said. "Addressing and confronting this birthright citizenship provision up front will be a precondition for a guest worker program going through."
Staff writers Perla Trevizo and Michael Davis contributed to this story.
Thank you Congressman Deal...
bump
“But Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., wants to see that practice end for children of illegal immigrants. “
Good move. Hope this catches on.
We are being exploited and taken advantage of. New rules are needed. Clearly, people that EXPLOIT this and TAKE ADVANTAGE of this are NOT the kind of immigrants we want here.
PING
This article explains the misuse of 14th Amendment by “birthright” anchor babies of illegal aliens and their supporters in depth...
Interesting. We definitely need to start moving in this direction. No more Jackpot Babies.
When “ several immigrant-rights advocates say Rep. Deal’s bill is “un-American” and unfairly targeting Hispanics” you KNOW that he’s doing right...
LOL
"He's proposing to change the Constitution to accommodate his anti-immigrant and xenophobic beliefs," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials.
His district is ground zero for illegal immigration in Georgia -- it includes Gainesville and Hall County, where most of the chicken industry is located. Folks in his district are fed up with illegals who live 20 to an apartment, drive drunk without licenses or insurance, steal anything that isn't nailed down, and send all their earnings home to Mexico. Even the employers (who are benefitting from the cheap labor that won't complain for fear of being deported) have realized that the downside is too great.
Just think, if we could get this passed, no more Elviras and their ADD afflicted jackpot babies!
Retaining this law much longer will constitute national suicide.
I don't remember the disposition, but thought it got negotiated away due to the precident it might set in regard to the clause "jurisdiction thereof".
I'm inclined to believe we don't need a constitutional amendment, but a more correct interpretation. I think the 14th has been misconstued, but was only meant to make 4/5th citizens whole. Of course, I'm not a legal expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night.
Love your Nathan Deal
My 3rd District Zach Wamp is part of this too
:)
Ooooooooooooooooooo
What a shame...LOL
:)
Notice how the illegal lovers claim that anything which targets illegals is targeting “Hispanics”, yet will tell you at the same time that Mexicans are not the core of the illegal problem?
They always want it both ways.
BTW, the bill is PRO-American and ANTI-illegal. So if most of the illegals happen to be Mexicans, then I suppose one could say that it is anti-[illegal] Mexican.
But, as always, the game plan is to eliminate the difference between illegal aliens and legal immigrants.
If Republicans ever hope to win this war, they better learn how to set the agenda for defining the terms used. The left is much better at it, up to now at any rate. The media gives them a lot of help by continually parroting their Orwellian Newspeak.
I just read the other day that the United States granted citizenship to all American Indians in 1901. If the 14th Amendment was meant to be interpreted the way La Raza does, why would this have been necessary?
It took a liberal pea brain judge to ever interpret it that way to start with.
Exactly!
Granting citizenship to American Indians...there’s the precedent for following the original interpretation of our Constitution. Unless someone can prove those American Indians were not born here. Maybe the Supreme Court will have to visit this issue — and this issue would be a great uniter of both parties in the 2008 election.
Sometime about 1984 (maybe even 1974), Paul Harvey was talking about women crossing the border to have their babies in America. What seems like a very small problem then has certainly grown.
I don't recall reading anything about a constitutional rule in the constitution, it either say it are it doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.