Posted on 12/27/2005 5:58:34 AM PST by xzins
Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship'
By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface - kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" - provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's proposal. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that."
Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as "a huge magnet" attracting illegal immigrants. He cited estimates - challenged by immigrant advocates - that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born to illegal immigrants.
"It's an issue that we are very concerned about," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization that opposes any effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere," she said. "But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream - it's becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it."
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes Deal's proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion.
"This is red meat for conservatives," he said. "They throw out these issues they know aren't winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do better job of educating people why it's wrong."
According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop illegal immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of Deal's measure.
"Any issue that has a `damn right' response, you can go with," Tancredo said. "You ask if we should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this country and having a baby here who is an American citizen, and most people say, `Damn right.'"
However, Tancredo acknowledged that Deal's measure faces major obstacles. Though he believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the proposal to come to a vote, Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or draw a veto from President Bush, who has sought to steer a middle course on some immigration issues.
The best strategy, Tancredo suggested, might be to avoid presenting the measure as a separate, stand-alone bill and instead add it to a broader piece of legislation that the Senate could not disregard.
Tancredo, Deal and others have noted that the United States is among the relatively few wealthy nations that allow birthright citizenship.
However, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said some Western European nations with different policies have suffered problems.
"Look at Germany - the children of guest workers are not citizens," he said. "That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That's the opposite of where we want to go."
Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably strike down any measure that challenged the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantees.
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal," he said. "It's not the kind of proposal that gets taken seriously by those who actually want to grapple with immigration issues."
Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor babies" because - when they reach adulthood - they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but authoritative statistics are scarce.
Damn right.
Law of unintended consequences.
Damn straight! Plopped babies of illegals are not US citizens!
Mama always said, "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Yesterday Mama said, "Two illegals do not make a legal."
Exactly it's a huge magnet. This has to stop immediately!! Come on (R)House and Senate pass legislation and STOP this travesty, millions of kids and their parents on welfare, medicaid that we taxpayers are picking up the tab for just because some illegal has a kid here.. ENOUGH!!!
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal,"
Who needs to read the entire 14th amendment or have a supreme court? This guy knows it all. Idiot.
ANWR! ;)
Anchor Baby buggie bump(er)
wouldn't you know it.......
our congress refuses to stop two criminals from having a baby in our country illegal but instead our congress says, "come on down, we have freebies from the taxpayer for you."
next the courts step in and give the baby legal status allowing two criminals to apply to become legal.....
with all the rights of a legal.
the baby receives health care, food stamps, a free education, and other goodies.......
where is the petroleum jelly, this thing these congress people are placing in my backside is really beginning to hurt.
but do our congress persons care about the hurt being placed on the American taxpayer?
Yes, they care so much about the American taxpayer they are simply rushing about to and fro to keep this legislation from ever seeing the light of day.
This will be tied up for years in the courts and by then, no matter what the decision, it will probably be too late.
I wish I had a more optomistic outlook on this situation but I believe on this issue our congress persons have already hired the surrender monkey to wave the white flag.
Several thoughts here. "Punishing the children" is sophistry in the extreme. The children are not aware of the rights of citizenship for many years after birth and, if the "children" are of a certain culture may be expected to reject citizenship in deed if not in word. How many members of Aztlan are such "babies"?
More seriously, there is the obvious problem today that we can't ignore. Foreign women who come here specifically to create anchor babies. How many other countries honor such a phony 'accident? Also, "sleepers" have certainly been introduced into our country, legal and otherwise. Treating these the same as normal people if children should result while here would be the ultimate abuse of our laws, and "punishing the child" should be the least of our worries.
Are any know historical cases, or even discussions during the 18th and 19th centuries of citizenship for the children of spies and other "enemies" in the country illegally? I can't believe that the issue never came up. How was the issue treated prior to the 14th amendment?
It seems to me that jurisdiction means something different than does 'physical custody.'
I suspect, though, that an amendment is the only way this will ultimately be solved.
Only in the mind of a leftist is mere common sense viewed as extreme and wacko. It's like saying that if someone breaks into your house and has a baby, it's your kid and you pay for its upbringing. Sheer idiocy. If you let libs run the asylum, we should open the floodgates and let everyone in the world come here just because they want to. It's the only "fair" thing to do.
I think we are in agreement that an amendment is the only way to solve this issue.
My example was intended to show that we have the legal jurisdiction to remove a child from the physical custody of criminals and place it in foster care. If we can legally do that, how can the child not be under our jurisdiction?
Combine that with the magnet of welfare benefits and it's easy to see why we have this problem.
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.