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 -
Ping. I think you have thought about this issue also.
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."
A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?
>>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.<<
The trouble is, “the liberal cop-out” is how we got to this interpretation that makes children of illegals citizens. That interpretation contradicts the written intentions of the authors of the 14th amendment and common sense.
>>A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?<<
No.
No.
Then I'd appreciate a source that claims that every month a Mexican woman who is in her eighth month of pregancy is dying in the desert while attempting to cross the border.
I'm not denying that some pregnant women have most likely died crossing the border. The part I consider hyperbole is stating that it specificaly happens every month and to Mexican women who are eight months pregnant.
In 1866, when the amendment was written, there was virtually open immigration--hardly anyone showing up at New York or elsewhere was sent back. The authors had no idea of what the situation would be 130 or 140 years later.
I've read that pregnant South Korean women will sometimes fly to the US to have their babies born in the US, then return home--the idea being that the child might later benefit from American citizenship, like in getting admitted to an American university. Obviously that is a far smaller category of "anchor babies" and much less of a practical problem.
Wonderful piece.
I do wonder about putting the 14th Amendment text “subject to the jurisdiction” into play in the political arena.
Today a certain group is problematic, and it is politically expedient to exclude them from US “jurisdiction.” Tomorrow, the political winds may shift, and another group may fall out of favor, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Further, should Congress pass legislation of the kind described in the article, there would undoubtedly be legal challenges leading all the way to the Supreme Court. Thus, the final outcome of such a bill would depend on the ideological composition of the Court, at the time the issue is brought before it.
Dishonest. Or both. But definitely, dishonest.
Great essay as usual. The problem is that the Quisling ‘rat congress will never touch such legislation, not in a thousand years.
Ditto.
http://geocities.com/readerswrite/commentaries/Blessings_of_the_Liberty.htm#note4
As the author of the article aptly pointed out, the U.S. Congress is authorized to clarify this misinterpretation. For instance, persons that fall under jurisdiction of foreign countries (for instance, American-born children of Mexican citizens) are not “subject to jurisdiction thereof” in the sense of 14th Amendment.
Anchor Babies - 14th amend ping
It’s my understanding that this whole anchor baby fiasco started somewhere around 1950 because of a ruling around 1900 that granted a guy citizenship who was born here to two legal people. Did something happen somewhere along the way that specifically says anchors are citizens or did they just pick the ball up and run with it?
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Hoo, boy! If you're just an ignorant FReeper like me, click on the link for a definition.
BillyBob, thank you for posting this. As I read the original article, I was thinking that maybe this could be fixed via legislation and that a constitutional amendment would not be needed. Thanks for the excellent clafification.
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Maybe this is too broad? What about the shopping visa scenario of reply #19?
Maybe it should just simply be, "Babies born to those who are not American citizens are not American citizens and are not eligible for any of the benefits due American citizens?"
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.