Posted on 11/26/2005 5:41:28 PM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX (AP) — For years, proposals in Congress to end birthright citizenship have gone nowhere. But as lawmakers grapple with ways to solve illegal immigration, the idea is getting more attention.
The long-standing policy of birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”
But some congressional members say birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and jeopardizes national security.
U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., is one of 69 co-sponsors of legislation to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The proposal has gained ground with those who want to clamp down on illegal immigration through stricter enforcement and proponents of a guest-worker program alike.
“I’m all in favor of people from other countries becoming U.S. citizens, but I don’t know that it is appropriate to become a citizen automatically just by having the parents come into this country illegally and then be born here,” Shadegg said.
Some members of Congress also say they might be more inclined to support a guest-worker program if babies born to immigrants working in the United States on temporary visas were not afforded automatic citizenship.
Those who favor ending birthright citizenship say denying automatic citizenship through legislation can be accomplished because the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted.
Chapman University law professor John Eastman, in testifying in front of the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee, warned that giving citizenship to everyone born in the country in the post 9/11 world could be dangerous.
In Eastman’s view, the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. He argues the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants because their parents are living in the United States illegally.
Nearly one in five babies in Arizona is born to a mother living in the country illegally, according to a study of 2002 birth records and other government data by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors tighter restrictions on immigration.
Only California has a higher share of babies born to undocumented parents. The center estimates that in 2002, there were 383,388 babies born in the United States to undocumented mothers, or about one in 10 births.
Critics call children born to undocumented immigrants “anchor” babies because when they turn 21, they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency.
Cecilia Flores, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, is about to give birth to a daughter who will become one among about 15,000 babies born to undocumented mothers this year in Arizona and granted automatic citizenship.
But Flores and her husband Josi, also here illegally from Mexico, doubt that ending birthright citizenship will keep undocumented immigrants from coming to the United States because most come for jobs, not to have babies.
From their point of view, their baby deserves to be a U.S. citizen, even though they are living in the country illegally. “This is a country that is always promoting human rights,” Cecilia Flores said. “To deny citizenship to a defenseless child who had no say in being born here would be absurd. It would be unjust.”
"And this is written where?"
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
14th amendment was written to ensure freed blacks would be citizens.
Well he sort of forgot to put that part into the ammendment didn't he. I'm not sure you are going to be successful getting a "do over" thru the courts just because this man inserted somewhere the words "of course". Even in 1866, the language would have been obtuse at best.
As written, and as enforced since its inception, it has always meant that if you were born here you were a citizen. Its going to take a constitutional ammendment to get this changed.
I wonder is this is merely a politcal ploy for those co-sponsers in the most heavily affected areas? Does this have any chance of becoming law?
An amendment is the only way to be certain that the legislation won't be tossed.
It sure looks unconstitutional on it's face, based on the plain language of the Constitution, and I like sticking to the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution.
And what might have made sense in the 18th century when we were still a young, unpopulated country and travel was far more difficult and expensive makes no sense whatever in an era of fast, cheap long-distance travel and uncontrolled migrations.
Rather than curb illegal entry into our country, our law makers would have us lose a birthright? That's Insane no matter how it's packaged.
"Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Further explanation is here:
http://idexer.com/mt/2005/11/washpost_14th_editorial.html
An amendment to the Constitution would not be necessary.
Had they meant that, they would have said that. This is just so much posturing after the fact, by people who did not succeed in getting their pet language into the amendment.
All that matters is what is written. The "Not owing allegiance to anybody else" bit is really telling. There are many countries which give citizenship to children of citizens regardless of where they are born. When these children are born in the US they hold dual citizenship. Its been this way since 1866, and it has never been enforced the way you suggest it should, or the way Trumbull says he intended it.
The root of the problem is the language of the 14th. That is what we are stuck with, plus a long legacy of interpretation over the years. This is a bigger uphill fight than Roe V Wade, because the law has stood unchallenged for much longer.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to go the trouble to amend the Constitution to get away from this. You need only set the standard for naturalized citizens to require a LEGAL entry into the country, and no prior acts of illegal entry, thereby eliminating the anchor baby syndrome.
I believe that is already almost the case with many people here legally. I was born in the US to an American father and German (still citizen but legally here) mother. If I had been born just 9 months after I was (when the Germans changed their rules) or to a German father and American mother, I would have had dual citizenship. My brother was born later (so after the rules changed, and it didn't matter which parent it was), but my mother was then an American citizen, so I don't believe he was entitled to that duality. They do not make people give up their dual citizenship at 18 anymore, though.
" As written, and as enforced since its inception, it has always meant that if you were born here you were a citizen."
No, it hasn't. A court redefined it.
Actually, I believe under French law, the kid is French whether he wants to be or not.
It seems more than incongruous that those who today advocate with strong voices for a textualist reading of statutory and constitutional commands now seek to imply, infer and impose ipse dixit (it is so because I say it is so) reading of plain English. First, even the Chapman law professor would need to agree (if he believes in candor of our profession) that every canon of interpretation is contrary to what appears to be his fervent wish rather than a professionally sound analysis. Second, interpretation is not to be employed where the plain text raises no ambiguity or vagueness of meaning. Third, even the canon of interpretation that comes closest to his wishful thinking is that of ‘’noscitur a sociis.’’ That canon of interpretation is intended to assist courts in determining meaning tells a judge to interpret a word or phrase so that it has the same kind of meaning as it neighboring words or phrases.
Moreover, legislative history is meaningless when the final product, either a statute or, in this instance, a constitutional passage, is clear. There are no ambiguous words in the birthright phrase. In the vernacular, it says exactly what it means and the reverse of that is true as well.
It strains credulity and is professionally beyond legitimate scholarship to create a heretofore unknown and outrageously new meaning of the words ‘’..within jurisdiction…’’ The professor knows that and also knows that he should not be serving as a hired expert for advocates of re-inventing the concept of jurisdiction to satisfy a discrete group of those advocates. To do so is to engage in the same sort of situational ethics and truthfulness as that of which trial lawyers and their expert trial witnesses are universally accused by the same folks now hanging on the Chapman professor's every word.
I suspect this is not the end of this discussion.
What is REALLY "unjust" is that American taxpayers are forced to pay the billions of dollars it takes to support these "anchor babies" and their extended families.
But Flores (an illegal alien) about to give birth, and who's going to pay for this illegals baby????? NO SECOND GUESSES.
I picked France at random. The real subject was the issue of place of birth vs. citizenship of the parents.
I believe that to be a citizen of the USA one should be either born of legal permanent residences of the USA or at least one of your parents should be a citizen of the USA.
Thank you for your expert opinion, Miss "Legal Expert" Flores. I guess that means you won't mind should the law be changed. Your anchor-baby-to-be will most likely come in under the wire, but the next three or four or five or ten...maybe not so lucky.
It is a political necessity for Congress to go through the exercise of trying to pass a law to bend the meaning of the 14th Amendment only to get it slapped down post haste by the Supreme Court, before the people will be in the mood to pass an Amendment. Otherwise there will be no convincing answer to many who ask "well why don't they just pass a law."
You're kidding or being sarcasic, right?
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
More like throwing the baby out with all the immigrants.
I hope congress at least takes into consideration all those LEGAL immigrants. The only anchor babies that shouldn't be naturalized are those whose parents are here illegally.
Well said, and worth re-reading by all those who seek to blow a hole in the constitution in a ill-concieved and likely futile attempt to solve the problem of the moment.
It all hinges on some revisionist interpretation of a phrase ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof"). Unless they are diplomats, simply Being in the US subjects them to the jurisdiction of the US. Any other interpretation is a suicidal surrender of US sovereignty.
Where are those Freepers who rush to the defense of the constitution when the liberals what to call it a "living document", want to say that the words don't mean what they say?
Further, the effect of any proposed change would be zilch, nada, zero. They will still come, and they will still over-stay and they will still treat our border as if it didn't exist. Few, if any, come here to bear a child. They come for jobs and money, knowing that finding them and deporting them is not a priority any more than is keeping them out in the first place.
"They do not have an automatic entitlement upon America's generosity, even if their children are born here."
As I understand it, a pre-95 Congress granted illegals the right to taxpayer funded education and medical benefits.
It occurred to me, tho, that perhaps the US should send the home country of the illegals all bills for that education and medical care, assuming the individuals don't have the financial resources. If, say, Mexico got hit up with a few billion in education and a few more billion in medical care, they might not be so anxious to allow (encourage) those folks to cross the border illegally ???
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.