Pull Up Our Anchors To Discourage Illegal Immigration

Contrary to popular opinion, current practice, and the conventional wisdom, children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. should not receive automatic citizenship. These children, sometimes called "anchor babies," have been thought to deserve automatic or birthright citizenship in accordance with the Constitution.

However, Dr. Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at California State University, San Bernardino and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, makes a persuasive case against giving birthright citizenship to illegal-alien children born in the U.S.

This month's issue of Hillsdale College's journal Imprimis discusses his views. It is one of the most valuable publications on the market if you want to understand government and politics.

It is free upon request (www.hillsdalecollege.edu or write External Affairs, Hillsdale College, 33 E. College St., Hillsdale, MI 49242.)

Birthright citizenship is an important issue, one we should be resolved against. Giving automatic citizenship to "anchor babies" helps attract the illegal immigration that overwhelms our borders and creates all kinds of horrendous security and economic problems.

An estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already are in the U.S., and an estimated 400,000 illegals have ordered deported but still on the loose somewhere in the U.S. Only 2,000 federal agents, employed by the Department of Homeland Security, are available to track down the 12 to 20 million illegals, some of whom commit crimes and possibly plot terrorist attacks.

Mr. Erler says the belief birthright citizenship is required by an explicit command of the constitution, consistent with the British common law system, is erroneous.

His first argument considers the concept of citizenship in English common law. The Framers of the Constitution were well versed in common law, through William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England.

The concept of citizenship was unknown in English common law. Blackstone speaks of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance" without even mentioning citizenship.

Mr. Erler explains "birthright subjectship" derives from feudal law. It is a master-and-servant relationship, which means all born within its protection owe him a perpetual debt of gratitude. Blackstone says this debt is "intrinsic" and cannot be "forfeited, cancelled or altered." It is a doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

That notion of birthright subjectship was rejected by the Founders. Our Declaration of Independence solemnly proclaims that ..."the good people of the colonies ... are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all those connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be dissolved." This proclamation according to Blackstone and the common law is treason, hence this common law doctrine of perpetual allegiance, with its feudal origins, could not possibly serve as the basis of American citizenship. Mr. Erler says thinking it could is "too preposterous to entertain!"

In fact, the great James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, member of the constitutional convention and Supreme Court Justice said, "Under the Constitution of the United States, there are citizens, but no subjects." Our idea of citizenship thus on the consent of the governed and not the accident of birth.

So this brings us to the key question - what is citizenship? It is a matter of law. A new nation lacks citizens until its law creates them. The original Constitution of 1787 did not define citizenship although it did mention it. But in 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, we gained our first constitutional definition of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside."

Note, the amendment's language has two components: first-born or naturalized and second subject to the jurisdiction. Those who believe having been born in the U.S. creates an automatic ticket for citizenship ignore the second component - subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If being born were enough to confer citizenship that would mean the subject-to-jurisdiction language was superfluous. If the Framers of the 14th amendment had wanted birth alone to confer citizenship, they would have simply written all those born in the U.S. or naturalized are citizens. But they did not, instead they developed a double-barreled definition.

The debate makes the Framers' intent clear. When the question was raised about whether the amendment would automatically make all Indians citizens, Sen. Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, said Indians would not become citizens. That's because even though they are born in the U.S. they owe allegiance to their tribes and not the U.S.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, the then-Judiciary Committee chairman, agreed with Howard. He argued that being "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States."

Sen. Howard further clarified the significance of the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause, saying jurisdiction means allegiance, excluding not only Indians, but also "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

The bottom line mean being born in U.S. means more than mere geography, because citizenship requires undivided political allegiance to the U.S.

Further evidence rejecting the English common-law notion of perpetual allegiance and subjectship also exists. The same year Congress passed the 14th Amendment, it also passed the Expatriation Act, which permitted U.S. citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This law, supported by Sen. Howard and other leading advocates of the 14th amendment, makes it clear that perpetual allegiance or subjectship has no place in American law. This all means that the idea of birthright citizenship, birthright allegiance and birthright subjectship, hearkening back to feudal and common law, have no place in American law. Both were clearly rejected by the Framers of the 14th Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868.

Mr. Erler thus concludes it is absurd to conclude the intent of the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, a rejected feudal- and common-law feature. He writes, "Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance - or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing."

One U.S. Supreme Court decision holds that children of legal, resident aliens are entitled to citizenship. But the justice writing the majority opinion (in a 5-4 decision) used subject and citizen interchangeably, and failed to recognize the distinction between feudal law and monarchy on the one hand and constitutional republicanism on the other. The dissent in a strong opinion said the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence repealed the idea of birthright subjectship.

Consequently, Mr. Erler argues that overruling this case should be easy. Also, the case involved legal aliens, not illegals, thus limiting its precedential value.

Mr. Erler's case against birthright citizenship importantly shows a constitutional amendment is not necessary to change the current practice.

Getting back to the case of the Indians, Congress started granting them citizenship on a tribe-by-tribe basis in individual enactments. Then, in 1923, all tribes were offered citizenship based on reciprocal agreements under the law: an offer of citizenship made by the government and accepted by the Indians. This means Congress used its legislative power to grant citizenship under the 14th Amendment and to determine eligibility. It can also do the same with children of illegal aliens. No amendment was necessary in 1923 and none is necessary now.

Congressional action to end birthright-citizenship should be a high priority, and with the interest in illegal immigration, it is remarkable that our Congress hasn't considered this matter a priority.

While Congress considers eliminating birthright-citizenship, it ought to consider another interpretation of citizenship closely related to birthright-citizenship - dual citizenship.

We have tolerated dual citizenship, but that is outrageous when the views of the Framers of the 14th Amendment are accounted for. As already indicated, the Framers said "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means exclusive allegiance to the U.S.

This issue gains further importance, because 85 percent of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from nations allowing dual citizenship. Consequently, we become vulnerable to foreign pressures on our citizens who have divided allegiances. Mr. Erler writes, "Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny."

Don't be lulled into thinking that these concepts are just technicalities when it comes to defining citizenship. Should we lose our concept of citizenship and not legally implement it, we endanger our nationhood and our constitutional democracy.

Mr. Erler notes elite liberal opinion has long considered "the sovereign nation-state as an historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world. We are assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation-state. In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of the nation-state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation 'violate universal personhood.' In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous."

This concept, if adopted, then leads to open borders. Mr. Erler explains this view claims illegal immigrants are merely trying to support family values - universal values that should not be denied because of b orders. To this open-border mentality, borders, exclusive allegiance and political exclusivity are opposed to universal values if not human decency. This open-borders mentality has been adopted by the Mexican government and Leftists in the U.S.

In the face of this liberal thinking, we should remember history tells us constitutional democracy has only survived in the nation-state. Should we abandon the nation state to those who prefer being global citizens, we may abandon constitutional democracy in the end. Europe has headed that way, and Mr. Erler considers the EU (European Union) an administrative tyranny, not a constitutional democracy. A world-state is likely to be an EU-type administrative tyranny on a larger stage.

Mr. Erler concludes, "The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a 'separate-and-equal' nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.

So beware of politicians who are more interested in being citizens of the world than of being citizens of the United States. And beware of politicians who campaign in Berlin, Germany, rather than Berlin, N.J. And beware of politicians who have greater interest in being loved in Europe than in doing right for America.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

The figure of 12-20 million illegal intruders has been used for over 20 years.

It is a basic impossibility that this figure can still be an accurate calculation.
Last year 4,213,000 new babies were born in the USA and the most plentiful last name was GARCIA.

The points in thes article are valid. I only challenge the numbers of 12-20 million.
I believe it is much closer to 50 million by now. These illegals have been VERY prolific. Look at Postville, Iowa. That is a LONG way from the immediate border area.

Mexican Middle Class Fuels Ascendance of ‘Greater Mexico’
La Prensa San Diego ^ | July 25, 2008 | Louis E.V. Nevaer
FR Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 3:28:55 PM by 3AngelaD

For a generation, Mexican intellectuals have pondered the possibility of a “Greater Mexico” – the idea that Mexican immigration to the United States was so persistent and sustainable, that Mexican culture could “re-settle” lands lost to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican American War. Americans, clinging to the belief of a “melting pot,” dismissed that notion, arguing that Mexican immigrants would follow historical norms and assimilate into mainstream American life, as previous generations of newcomers did before them.

A new study by the Institute of Mexicans Abroad (IME), part of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Relations, offers insight that answers this lingering question. As Carlos González y Gutiérrez, IME’s director, told Notimex, “To our surprise and unease, we realize that Greater Mexico isn’t on the other side of the moon, but that more and more it looks like us, and that has many consequences. The principle one is that this new situation reflects, to a good degree, our divisions of class, background, language, ethnicity and educational attainment.”

In other words, there is a “perfect storm” in which middle class ambition, immigration and higher birth rates among Hispanics, is changing the face of Mexicans in the United States. Whereas in the past the bulk of Mexicans entering the United States has come from the economically marginalized – rural farmers, urban poor, under-educated and unemployed – as part of NAFTA’s unintended consequences, Mexican middle class professionals are now establishing themselves on both sides of the border.

Hundreds of thousands of non-indigenous Mexicans, meaning Mexicans who are Caucasian and of European descent, are migrating to the United States; the idea of a “Greater Mexico” is becoming a reality.

Who are these middle class Mexicans with lives and families across the border? They are people like the Caceres brothers, whose company designs and manufactures crystal chandeliers. Some are based in Merida; others are in Los Angeles. They see themselves as Mexicans who live in cities that accommodate minorities – Maya speakers in Merida and English speakers in Los Angeles. --SNIP--

In the meantime the Mexican cuckoo continues to lay its eggs in our nest, and we continue to raise them. Mexicans may not know the first thing about our laws (or care) but they do know that if they can get a `mamacita’ across the border to drop her baby, los locos gringos will take her ninos in and raise them.
T. Paine would say, I think, that it is nonsensical to cling to `law’ that does us harm; of course we all know this . . . all Americans do, all but our leaders, including the two candidates for president.

Regardless of what this Erler fellow says, the 14th Amendment is vague on this issue and the accepted interpretation is that all people born on US soil with a few exceptions are citizens. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly INS) training materials say people born here are citizens even if both parents are illegals. That's just the accepted law that just about everyone at your local immigration office or immigration court will take for granted. We need to just go ahead and push to amend the 14th Amendment so that there can be no mistake about who is a citizen at birth and who isn't.

And lets get something else out in the open - while we tend to focus on Mexicans and their anchor babies because Hispanics, primarily from Mexico, make up the largest number of illegal immigrants and “anchor babies”, people come from all over the world to have babies here for the same reason - automatic citizenship for their offspring, and an anchor to keep them here as well.

We tend to come across as racist when we focus on one particular group. And while the problem may primarily be with hispanic/Mexican anchor babies, there are many Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and so on who also come here for the same benefits.

All of it needs to be shut down.

“We need to just go ahead and push to amend the 14th Amendment so that there can be no mistake about who is a citizen at birth and who isn’t.”

I’ll go further and say that this is the `linch-pin’ to immigration reform. Until this is done, any “comprehensive immigration reform” will just be a repeat of 1986.
We will just be kicking this can down to the road to our children with the difference being, of course, that they will see that we made the same mistake, but a second time. And that’s one definition of insanity.

I don’t know - there are a lot of folks with “government position” that don’t need to be voting!!!

But seriously - If you physically are incapable of military, police, fire service, does that make you ineligible to vote? Flat feet, debilitating injury in youth, etc.?

How about the old system - you have to be a property owner to vote. Maybe add to that, a requirement to be an actual taxpayer (not a net tax recipient). If you paid $2500 in federal taxes, but then got a “refund” of $3000, then you are not a taxpayer.

Listening to the politicians you would think they have solved the illegal immigration problem. They have been saying the same figure of 12 to 20 million for tha last ten years.
There’s got to be at lest 25 million in that time just from births.
Then the millions of border crossers.
Fifty million is probably a conservative number.
They’ve taken over whole cities in So California.
There is no way to take those cities back either, they are gone.
The border fence will soon be irrelevant because the border has moved.
Mexico is expanding like a horde of locusts overtaking farmland. There is no way to get them out.

“...people come from all over the world to have babies here for the same reason - automatic citizenship for their offspring, and an anchor to keep them here as well.”

“Anchor babies” don’t really keep people here as much as people think. A citizen child cannot apply for a visa for his parents until the child turns 21. Usually if illegals with citizen children are deported they take their children with them. The real anchor for Mexicans and others coming over here are fat white chicks (or any other woman who is a citizen of this country...but what you see usually are fat white chicks with Mexican men). If an illegal gets married he can stay here. If he entered the country without inspection and didn’t come over on a visa he overstayed or something he might have to go back to his home country for a short while, but odds are in no time he’ll be able to come back and get a green card and a few years later his citizenship. He can then bring his parents over, and any children under 21 he might have. He can bring his brothers and sisters over too but that would take several years since siblings are not considered “immediate family” in our oddball immigration laws.

We can't just declare so many people illegal that already claim that right and can claim precedence in the legal system. If we do there will be riots like we've never seen before. We do have to have some type of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and eliminating anchor babies can be part of that but not retroactively. It would be akin to an amnesty but I don't see how we can get around it.

We can use attrition to turn back the present tide of illegal immigration like stringent employer hiring rules and fines. We should push English only in the government so that it becomes the official language of the United States and we don't have to translate ballots and government business into so many languages. The border patrol needs to be beefed up and backed up legislatively. They need to be given wider discretion in confronting illegals.

This could all be part of a more sane Comprehensive Immigration Reform and some limited amnesty would have to be part of it. We have to assume though, that all the talent we have within our borders is enough so that we can take care of ourselves.

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.