Birthright citizenship law targeted by Congress

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.”

Thanks---The situational ethics and the ad hoc fervency of a group of wishful advocates are here on this site. Their dearest wish then becomes father to their conclusion that the clear and unmistakeable words of our organic document are now ripe for manipulation irrespective of their lack of ambiguity or the need to be interpreted in order to understand the meaning. How replete with fraud and deceit! It's a shameful exercise demonstrating that the depth of their collective intellectual integrity is roughly equalvalent to a tea spoon.

The problem and its resolution lies not with the 14th Amendment, it lies on denying entry at the border so that the issue doesn't arise. What they advocate for is a treatment of symptoms not the casue.

Thanks for the support.

No person, that includes everyone within our borders, legal or otherwise, may be denied equal protection of the laws. If that requires medical care, education, law enforcement protection, food stamps, etc., then so be it. The Constitution says what it says and it commands that equal protection be recognized and complied with. The term ''no person'' is not ambiguous. The drafters could have replaced that term with ''no citizen,'' but chose to be inclusive rather than selectively exclusive.

If the need should arise for someone to argue this point, or the 14th Amendment's birthright clause, I'm available. But there are far superior constitutional scholars well prepared to undertake that position.

I guess I am missing how food stamps and free medical care and education - concepts inconceivable to the Founders - qualify under the equal protection clause. Is that in some penumbra ? There's a difference between "laws," a fairly unambiguous term, and "entitlements." All citizens are not entitled to food stamps, or other social programs. Those entitlements were only conferred upon illegal alients by a relatively liberal Congress in the late 80's. It is not a right enshrined in the Constitution.

It's an easy concept that is firmly entrenched in constitutional law. Any detriment (ie:law or regulation enforcement) or any benefit to which other persons similarly situated are entitled cannot lawfully restricted or denied to any person within our territorial jurisdiction on the basis of race, religion, creed, citizenship or country of origin. It comes down to this: if a person - irrespective of citizenship - seeks to avail himself of a benefit otherwise available to other persons, that benefit cannot be conditioned on citizenship or status of an alien. That's the basic constitutional doctrine of equal protection of the laws.

Just as every person within our jurisdiction (ie: subject to our civil and criminal laws) must pay taxes on inccome or property, comply with our criminal laws, can sue or be sued in our courts, can be subpoened or compelled to attend court or appear before a law enforcement agency or grand jury or any other aspect of participation in daily life, then that same person is entitled to whatever any other person would.

We can agree, disagree, like it or not, but our Constitution does not allow it to be any other way.

could you give me some case citations?

Under your scenario, anyone who happens to be physically in the US on election day could just walk in and vote ... I think your interpretation is way too liberal. I believe the protections clause has to do with due process, not entitlements, but do look forward to your citing those cases.

Voting is an attribute of citizenship and has no relation to the matter of equal protection in the context under discussion. That said, look at the poll tax and public access cases. Yours is an interesting response but not relevant. I've already mentioned several precise matters that fall within the equal protection doctrine.

Don't like it? Too bad, it is a concept firmly entrenched in constitutional law by the courts for at least the last 60 -70 years. If you're asking me for legal research, the answer is for you to do your own at the nearest public library. Buy a used constitutional law case/text book or go on-line and ''AskJeeves'' or ''Google'' the phrase ''equal protection.''

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.