Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment
The American Thinker ^ | August 30, 2010 | J.R. Dunn

Posted on 08/30/2010 3:14:56 AM PDT by Scanian

It appears that the GOP -- with the help of the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Devil -- is out to revise the 14th Amendment to the point of meaninglessness. Maybe even write the amendment out of the Constitution itself -- if not discard the Constitution completely. And all so that poor foreign newborns, who have never hurt a fly, won't be awarded with free American citizenship upon first seeing the light of day. Makes you sick, doesn't it?

At least that's how the legacy media, along with various immigration activists and liberal politicians, have chosen to play it.

The question, of course, involves anchor babies (AKA "jackpot babies"), infants born to illegal immigrants in the certainty that, under the "natural-born citizenship" clause of the 14th Amendment, their status as American citizens, with all rights and privileges pertaining thereto, will enable their families, lo, even unto the third cousins, to maintain residence in the U.S. unmolested by immigration or other law enforcement.

Illegal immigration has developed into one of those controversies that parcel themselves out piece by piece rather than all at once, a factor that gives the immigration controversy its never-ending-saga quality. Anchor babies are the latest installment. At first glance, it's not the kind of thing that anyone thinks of as a problem. How many could there be, after all? A few thousand? But this is overlooking the fact that anchor babies constitute one of the few true loopholes in American immigration law. The actual numbers beggar belief. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 340,000 of the 4.3 million infants born in the U.S. in 2008 were children of illegals. That number was matched if not exceeded in 2009. Something on the order of 8% of all children born in American hospitals can be classed as anchor babies. Of course, this percentage varies from region to region. In some Texas hospitals, up to 80% of the maternity patients are illegals.

This isn't a problem -- it's a crisis. It's not surprising that it's arisen at this particular point of the debate. The real question is why it didn't come up years ago.

The clause the illegals are taking advantage of appears as part of the 14th Amendment, one of the most important amendments ever added to the Constitution, its purpose to guarantee that the freed slaves would not be cheated of their birthright as Americans. The passage in question, Section 1, reads:

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This appears straightforward. The problem arises with the introductory phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," which has been interpreted to mean that any individual born in the U.S. under any circumstances is automatically an American citizen. This was never the intention, as is made clear by the application of the amendment in the years since. American Indians were not considered to be citizens under the 14th Amendment, since they owed a higher allegiance to their tribes (today, Indians are considered to be something along the lines of dual citizens). Similarly, the offspring of foreign diplomatic officials are not considered to be American.

The case law concerning birthright citizenship is mixed. The Slaughterhouse Cases, decided by the Supreme Court shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, held that birthright citizenship did have exceptions. But in the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court decided that a man born of immigrant parents could under some circumstances be considered a citizen. Although the court did not state that "all" children born in the U.S. were citizens, and in truth strongly implied otherwise, the majestic simplemindedness of the law established precisely that conclusion as common usage.

In recent years, several attempts have been made to plug this loophole. In 2009, Rep. Nathan Deal, (R-GA) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would have restricted citizenship to children born to citizens and legal immigrants. The bill suffered the fate you'd expect in the Obama Congress. This year, the midterm election cycle revived the question, with senators John Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) promising hearings into the matter for the next session.

Enter the media. With the rise of birthright citizenship as an issue, we've witnessed a transformation of media and left-wing gadflies from knee-jerk constitutional relativists to strict textualists of a purity to impress even Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. One example is Jonathan Allen of Politico, who wants us to know that "[t]he Republican Party was for the 14th Amendment before its members started turning against it." It seems that the RNC features the text of the amendment on its web site as one of the party's great achievements. According to Allen, the fact that some Republicans wish to examine one phrase of the amendment renders the entire GOP back to 1868 an army of hypocrites. By this logic, anyone in favor of any amendment to the Constitution deserves to be barred from public life. (Allen recently spent time as a political flack for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat and one of the party's prime wackos -- she worked to have Christian crosses banned from government buildings, supports direct financial payments to the Palestinian Authority, and was one of the loudest congressional voices calling for Terry Schiavo to be put to sleep -- before deciding that he was at heart a reporter, and not just that, but a "politically independent" one. Got it.)

The Los Angeles Times tells us that "... some Americans hold a fringe view and would deny citizenship to those whose parents entered this country illegally. That idea so violates our history and law that it has long been consigned to the periphery ..." Unlike the legalization of marijuana or gay marriage, both of which are supported by the Times and thus are obviously not fringe views. Keep in mind -- LA is in California.

According to Morgan Smith of the Texas Tribune, "No single document does more to warm the cockles of the Republican heart than the Constitution. Yet of late, the Texas GOP has evinced a special disdain for a particular constitutional amendment: The 14th, which contains the birthright citizenship provision." Difficult to tell whether she's being sarcastic about the GOP or the Constitution, isn't it? She's obviously unaware of that Republican website venerating the old 14th. She needs to talk to Jonathan Allen right away.

Mary Sanchez at the Kansas City Star is shocked, deeply shocked, to learn that there's politics going on, and in an election year, no less: "Election year scripts are pretty well established in American politics. For Republicans, the script usually involves a polarizing issue, invariably some imagined threat to the nation or its traditional values ... This year they've gone for broke with a proposal to revise the U.S. Constitution. Several leading members of Congress are pushing the idea of hearings to discuss gutting all or part of the 14th Amendment." That "gutting" is a nice touch. Sanchez deserves a Pulitzer for that alone.

But it would be difficult to top Maria Elena Salinas' "Leave Babies out of Debate on Immigration": "Now the new target is babies. Yes, babies. A group of prominent Republican lawmakers is proposing repealing parts of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States." Don't you understand? Can't you see? Those Republicans are after little babies. And puppy dogs. And butterflies. And snail darters!

There's not much in the way of actual argument amid all the hysteria, innuendo, and fantasy. Morgan Smith insists that we'll need a huge bureaucracy to handle infant IDs after the amendment is "repealed." (Exactly like the huge bureaucracy we had before Wong was decided, I suppose. And since when did liberals object to huge bureaucracies?) There's also a contention that the anchor baby loophole isn't drawing people across the border at all. It seems that a child of illegals would have to "declare" his parents on reaching age 21, after which they'd be required to leave the country for as much as ten years and then return. But of course, it doesn't work that way. What illegals are hoping for -- and what they get, in most cases -- is leniency from the authorities on producing an American-born child. Nobody would willingly separate a family under such circumstances, Maria Salinas to the contrary.

But of course, they don't need arguments, because arguments, facts, and debate are beside the point. These articles were written as a form of well-poisoning. They are designed to make a topic so radioactive as to render it untouchable. Once this is assured, the progressive left wins by default, with no opposition, only a line of empty shoes that the Lindsey Grahams of the nation have kicked off in order to run away faster.

This has been attempted many a time, and it has worked many a time -- with gay rights, Islamic activities, and much of the Green agenda, all of which are off limits as far as any meaningful debate goes. But it may not work in this case.

It may not work because the immigration debate is not media-driven, or politician-driven. It is voter-driven. Left up to the media and pols, it would never have come up. Quite the contrary -- both would work together to stuff the country full of foreigners for their own purposes, as has occurred in the U.K. and much of Europe. But that's not what's happening here. What we've seen over the past few years is the emergence of immigration as a quality-of-life issue. It's the sort of issue that, like inflation, or crime, or education, simply doesn't go away. Public concern has forced serious behavioral changes on such trimmers as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. It is no longer something they can dodge. Nor is it something that the media can manipulate, any more than it could manipulate the national crime wave of a generation ago. Voters will allow themselves to be fooled as long as it involves something that does not affect them directly. But when it does, there is nothing much for the "opinion leaders" to do but go along. And illegal immigration affects everyone directly.

It is very likely that the anchor baby question will end up in the courts. It's also quite likely that the current interpretation will be overturned. Because there's yet another phrase in the 14th that illegal supporters have overlooked. (Much the same as they overlook the second half of the Establishment Clause: ..."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When's the last time you heard that quoted in arguments over freedom of religion?) That's the line reading "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's that phrase that assures that the children of diplomats, POWs, and foreign criminals in U.S. custody are not given the benefit of citizenship. Simply put, they don't qualify because they retain allegiance to their native countries. It logically works the same way for illegals. It will take some time for this overlooked passage to unwind at last, but unwind it will.

I predict that when it does, the media -- including the above parties -- won't like it any better than they do now. This is the second time in as many weeks that circumstances have enabled the American left to pose as protectors of Constitutional values. The other is, of course, the Ground Zero victory mosque, concerning which the same people who have driven American children out of schools for the crime of praying have struck bold postures in favor of freedom of religion. In both cases, they have discovered their newfound love of strict intentionalism in support not of their fellow citizens, but of foreigners -- foreigners who are utilizing American law and custom to get away with something. People who are abusing both the Constitution and the principles on which it is based.

One thing for certain: if next week, a situation evolves in which it would benefit the American left and its backers in the media to toss the Constitution into the nearest dumpster, we can be sure they'd do so without a second's hesitation. We might wish for a little consistency -- but that would be asking too much.

TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchorbabies; constitution; palin; teaparties

1 posted on 08/30/2010 3:15:00 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Anchor babies are not a crying out loud absurdity to the ruling class. That's all the peons (Citizens) need to know.

Compassionately embrace a ruler they step down. It's a win/win feel good thing.
2 posted on 08/30/2010 3:42:28 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spectre; truthkeeper; processing please hold; antceecee; navymom1; jaredt112; Edgerunner; ...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

Obama’s August Surprise: Turning AZ and 22 other States over to the UN

Phoenix Bars Provide Recruiting Ground for Cartels, Authorities Say

America Under Siege (Oliver North)

AFL-CIO Joins Communists, La Raza, ACLU, Other Unions in Voter Registration Drive

Open borders advocates are accessories to murder, rape and terror.

Back Door Amnesty

U.S. to drop many deportation proceedings

At Naco port of entry, officer takes kick to face

2 Car bombs explode near Mexico TV station, transit office

Rafaela Hernandez: A campesina's (farm worker's) story (illegal welfare recipient story)

Report: Victims of Massacre in Mexico Were Illegal Immigrants on Way to US (Video)

Policy shift may allow some illegal immigrants to stay

Arizona appeals block of immigration law

National Guard troops to deploy to Arizona border on Monday; they'll be armed for self-defense

How Many Deaths Until Obama Takes Border Security Seriously

Plan to release illegal immigrants on path to residency comes amid ICE push to deport criminals

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

Obama Wants Change to Allow Thousands of Illegals to Stay in US

King: Vilsack makes false claims to push amnesty [food prices]

4 charged with murder in apparent drug slaying

ICE skirts Congress by changing policy and halting deportations

Illegal voting feared, Latino drive stirs concerns

Illegal voting feared - Latino drive stirs concerns

Obama Amnesty Is Here

Prosecutor in Mexico Massacre Feared Dead

Illegal Aliens Want Sanctuary Policies In Writing

McCain: Mexico Violence Could Spill Into Arizona

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

Drug cash flows like water into Mexico

Mexico Imposes New Tariffs on U.S. After NAFTA Violation

PoliceBulletin I Just Received

Cornyn backs off birthright citizenship debate

Whooping Cough Makes Whopping Comeback (vaccination avoidance)

‘Illegal migrants’ massacred in Mexico

Source: Investigator in migrants' massacre killed (SEAL THE BORDER!)

Obama and Holder taking on Arizona's SB1070

THE FORGOTTEN Immigration Problem

Suspected drug hitmen kill Mexican mayor[of Hidalgo]

Mysterious empty yacht washes up on Florida beach...

2 cars explode in Mexico where 72 bodies found

[Mexico:]Explosion at Downtown Reynosa Bar

Orange County Is No Longer Nixon Country

Amerasians have standing to challenge Birthright Citizenship

Tea Party shadow on US primaries [Good news spun as bad]

3 posted on 08/30/2010 4:28:50 AM PDT by bcsco (From Recovery Summer to The Winter of our Discontent...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

NO more “phony anchor babies” !

4 posted on 08/30/2010 5:04:41 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (((.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

I hold to the position that those existing “anchor babies” aren’t American citizens since their parents weren’t “subject to the [American] jurisdiction thereof”, being illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of their own country.

So, not only do I want “no more” anchor babies, all those already here are foreigners in my eyes.

5 posted on 08/30/2010 5:15:27 AM PDT by bcsco (From Recovery Summer to The Winter of our Discontent...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Mr. Dunn's attempt to explain a complicated issue has created confusion about another. Mr. Dunn explains “...under the “natural-born citizenship” clause of the 14th Amendment, their status as American citizens, with all rights and privileges pertaining...” There is no “natural-born citizenship” clause in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment addresses only who are citizens. The words in the Constitution are all presumed to have meaning. The only place “natural born citizen” appears is in Article II Section 1 at clause 5. There have been many efforts to modify Article II which specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” twenty six attempts, none successful.

The principle author of the 14th Amendment, Ohio Congressman John Bingham, addressing the House in 1866 said

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born with the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;”

The term citizen, like the term natural born citizen, is defined by our common law, and is quite different from the British subject. From framer and president during the Continental Congress, Dr. David Ramsay,

“The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, ‘sub’ and ‘jacio’, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.” “Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none of hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another.”

In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

6 posted on 08/30/2010 5:42:01 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Anchor babies are bankrupting many States, Time to end this abuse.

7 posted on 08/30/2010 6:44:27 AM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mickie

The 14th Amendment never intended to count the children of foreign nationals born in the United States as American. It was an activist judge reacting to the Chinese Exclusion Act who created Anchor Babies by ignoring the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. Then Justice Brennen put that ruling on steroids.

8 posted on 08/30/2010 6:49:33 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mickie

The 14th Amendment never intended to count the children of foreign nationals born in the United States as American. It was an activist judge reacting to the Chinese Exclusion Act who created Anchor Babies by ignoring the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. Then Justice Brennen put that ruling on steroids.

9 posted on 08/30/2010 6:49:40 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..


10 posted on 08/30/2010 8:15:16 AM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Let us hope that members of the next Congress will correct this abuse.
And it doesn't look like it will take an amendment to the Constitution to do so.
11 posted on 08/30/2010 8:43:01 AM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...
Awarding citizenship to the children of illegals is NOT THE LAW. It is nothing but an overly generous and very stupid custom that has turned around and bitten us in the Khyber Pass.

Key thought in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence: an illegal act cannot bear legal fruit or convey a benefit. "Fruit of a poison tree," and all that sort of thing.

12 posted on 08/30/2010 12:21:26 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Revive The Poll Tax and Literacy Requirement for voter registration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson