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 havent 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.
Thompsons 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 reporters gloss on Thompsons 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. Heres 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. Thats 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. Heres 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? Heres 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 doesnt 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 theyve read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They havent read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they dont 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 -
Oh, I almost forgot! Congratulations on the new grandbaby! (I think I remember you saying you have a new one!) There’s nothin’ like them! Spoil ‘em rotten and then give ‘em back to mom and dad! (It’s a grandparent’s right AND duty, you know.)
John / Billybob
What immigration lawyers do is argue a “special needs” and not mere citizenship since mere citizenship earns a return trip home.
Generally it is, single mother fleeing abusive domestic violence relationship, the child has a catastrophic medical need which only US Medicine can treat, or something like that.
Much of it is also related to the fact that once the child turns 18 they can THEN return to the USA as a citizen and start serial emigrating their parents. However that is adult serial immigration, and not “anchor baby” where a minor essentially is claiming custody of the parents instead of the other way around.
One key indicator is the fact that lawyers can not do anchor baby serial immigration cases any more.
We have to look at the change in the applications that are being filed.
If we really wanted to have fun we should do an in depth examination of the immigration lawyer conduct before the immigration service and courts. Sham corporations, manipulation of medical needs, sham marriages, knowingly filing pointless assylum claims, and even domestic violence claims which only exist in immigration applications.
The wave you cite also exists just to have citizenship status regardless of whether or not the child is mispercieved an anchor.
The MSM, in its usual incompetence in reporting the law, has worked overtime to NOT inform the public as this decades old change in the law.
Respectfully submitted sir.
John / Billybob
I like your argument, but I am certain (and I bet you are, too) that a law removing citizenship from future anchor babies would be declared unconstitutional in about five seconds (since such a law does not enforce by appropriate legislation Section 1 of XIV but rather repeals that part of XIV).
Congress could not bar women from voting by its power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, Amendment XIX, and I'm quite confident Congress cannot do this, either.
Bump.
State registrars, Town,Cities, Hospitals have the right to stamp the Birth Certificates of children of people who cannot prove that they are legally here as follows:
NOT A U.S. CITIZEN-NOT SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE.
John, I've posted _my_ solution to the "anchor baby problem" before on FR, but I'll restate it. How about a critique?
This issue will not be decided until a clear interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been codified by the United States Supreme Court.
But bear in mind that the Court doesn't simply issue opinions "out of the air". There must be cases thrust before it upon which it will rule.
I think the Court could be forced into doing so. Here's how:
This will require the cooperation of sympathetic civic officials in one or more states (hopefully 3 in separate U.S. Federal Districts) who are absolutely willing to go to the mat on the issue and who will not lose their resolve as the case progresses through the court system. (As an aside, the Court might choose to ignore a "test case" from a single district, but would probably not be able to do so if cases sprung up from multiple districts.)
Here's how such test cases would be ignited:
I am _presuming_ that for births, birth certificates are issued by the city, municipality, or other governmental authority that has jurisdiction over the location where a birth occurs. Since big-city governments are "illegal friendly", I would think the test cases would have to be ignited from rural areas or small cities that are having problems with illegals.
What must be done is, when a birth occurs to someone who is apparently illegal, authorities must question her. If she admits to being illegal, they must issue a birth certificate that specifically states that the newborn shall not be considered an American citizen. The certificate should clearly state something to the effect of, say, "non-citizen birth on American soil".
Of course, the issuance of a "non-citizen birth certificate" will be immediately challanged by civil rights groups, perhaps even by government officials on higher levels. This is to be expected.
The local officials must stand their ground, for - of course - they will be challenged in the lower courts. And thus, the case (hopefully, multiple cases) will be generated, and progress through the system.
We will almost certainly lose at the trial level, but again, this is to be expected, and welcomed, for we WANT the issue to be appealed "upward".
And we must keep the heat up as the case progresses through the courts. With each loss, we must keep pushing it higher, and eventually, it will reach the high court.
I would not be foolish enough to speculate on how the Court would rule. But it has ruled in previous instances that _some_ babies born on American soil are NOT citizens (i.e., births to foreign diplomats).
I think we have a fighting chance to win. Even if we lose, it will clarify the issue once and for all, and perhaps the loss, combined with increasing anger about the illegal flood from native Americans will force Congress to consider a Constitutional Amendment to correct the 14th Amendment.
I have yet to see posted by ANYone a solution on how to correct the wrongly-interpreted 14th Amendment. I believe that the course I have outlined above - the ad-hoc issuance of "non-citizen" birth certificates, and the Court test that would follow - could do just that.
- John
The 1996 law which eliminated anchor babies has been upheld repreatedly.
You are confusing birthright citizenship with the immigration issue.
See the above posts.
jstratton@orlandosentinel.com
Only a child born of an American citizen, should be American, period.
Yes, there is the catch. If an illegal alien has registered with Selective Service or used fraudulent documents to stay in the US, he can receive a letter stating he has come up for the draft, but until he takes the oath of loyalty and enters the military he has not been drafted. After he takes the oath of loyalty he is then under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Thanks! She's sure a sweetheart. We visited the 16th thru the 21st. 200+ photos, etc. Grandma's been carrying around an album of the best to work, etc.
The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 380,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.
“Anchor Babies”
The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as “anchor babies.” Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family.
While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.
Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as ‘anchors’ to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.
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.