Posted on 09/29/2007 7:47:05 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The Constitution is simple, short and easy to read. There is no excuse for any reporter to write about it, without reading it. The latest example is an article about anchor babies in the Orlando Sentinel today (29 September) by Jim Stratton.
The article concerns a comment about anchor babies by Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President. If you haven’t followed the illegal immigration debate, anchor babies are children born on US soil of illegal immigrant parents. The babies get citizenship. Then, the provisions for “reuniting families” kick in, and the baby assists the parents in becoming legal.
It is a serious problem. Even illegals who cannot read a word of English, are aware of the law. Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as “an American.”
Thompson’s comment on the automatic citizenship was, “I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons, [and] needs to be revisited.” The reporter’s gloss on Thompson’s comment, was “Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court....”
The reporter was either incompetent or dishonest. Here’s what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says in its first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That’s the legal basis for anchor babies.
Those who say anchor babies are guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated without an amendment, jump right over the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Here’s an example to explain that, applied to children.
An Australian diplomat and his wife (or her husband) are serving in the United States. She has a child, born in a US hospital. Is that child an American? Absolutely not. Under the laws of the US, a child born of a diplomatic couple is a citizen of their nation, not ours, just as the embassies themselves are defined as territory of the foreign nations, not of the US.
What is the connection between the diplomatic child and the child of an illegal alien from whatever country, though most likely from Mexico? Here’s the last sentence of the 14th Amendment, a provision which is common to many amendments: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Based on the plain language of the Constitution, Congress is given the power in the 14th Amendment itself to pass “appropriate” legislation. Therefore, Congress could pass a law that says, “For the purpose of citizenship of them or their children, aliens who are not in the US legally, or not here for the purpose of obtaining citizenship are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as stated in the 14th Amendment.”
Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their “American” child.
Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn’t name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.
I am not picking on Jim Stratton and the Orlando Sentinel. The ignorance they display on this issue is common to most of the local and national reporters who talk about anchor babies. Almost all of them assume, and state, that the problem is built into the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. All of them are either dishonest, because they’ve read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They haven’t read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they don’t look it up.
This is not the first instance, nor the last, of the American press being a copraphage, consuming its own output.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
John / Billybob
Are Guatemalans born in Mexico citizens?
That throws a wrench in their machine.
Thank you for straightening that out.
Now, if we could only ping all journalists to read it. ;-)
The 14th amendment is just an interpretation away from changing the law to what I think was the original intent.
John / Billybob
illegals in mexico...are just resting until they can get across the border to the US!!!
Let me get this straight, Thompson was commenting on the law that was passed under the authority of the 14th amendment that allows for anchor babies and not commenting on the 14th amendment itself? And new legislation, also under the authority of the 14th amendment, could be passed that rescinds this law and thus bans anchor babies? And the reporter doesn’t understand this point?
Very interesting. Thanks!
Thank you John. Did you send this to Stratton?
Excellent!
bookmark
I would amend it to say that any child born of a woman who is in this country illegally does not have citizenship.
Any child born of a woman who is here legally should be American.
As is usual on this issue on FR, I am in the tiny minority.
You can argue it anyway you want but the text is clear.
The diplomatic exception exists because Ambassadors/Diplomats are not subject to the ‘Jurisdiction’ of the US. The classic idea of ‘diplomatic immunity’ — theoritically they can kill someone on our soil and not get prosecuted. Like everyone else — including illegal aliens.
* * *
Is it problem? Of course it is a problem if illegal aliens are doing what they can to have an anchor baby (including dying in the desert at 8 months).
But trying to muck with the text of the Constitution isn’t the way we should be doing this — as conservatives we should treat the Constitution with the reverence it deserves and not take the liberal ‘cop-out’ of ignoring the text and just pretending it says what they want it to say.
“Are Guatemalans born in Mexico citizens?”
Who cares? That’s between Guatemala and Mexico.
I would be in favor of a careful crafting of any changes to the Fourteenth Amendment, because I’m worried about mass disenfranchisement of any ethnic or religious group. Remember, the Constitution is forever, and can be applied to groups like Jews or Baptists or heterosexuals.
Any child born of a woman who is here legally should be American.
In the second scenario, wouldn't that make a child, that was born to a pregnant woman who came here on a visa to shop, legal. And then the woman overstays her visa still creating the "anchor" baby to gain citizenship?
“I’m worried about mass disenfranchisement of any ethnic or religious group. Remember, the Constitution is forever, and can be applied to groups like Jews or Baptists or heterosexuals”
If they were born to illegals, kick them out!
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.