Posted on 11/20/2005 12:51:07 PM PST by Icelander
McALLEN — A Republican-led effort in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to change a constitutional amendment that grants American citizenship to any child born on the nation’s soil.
In an effort to deal with illegal immigration, some congressmen are actively discussing the possibility of banning birthright citizenship, also known as "anchor baby provisions," claiming undocumented women have babies on U.S. soil so their children can gain access to this country’s services and benefits.
When those children turn 21, they in turn can petition the federal government for citizenship for their parents and siblings.
The 14th Amendment gives citizenship to anybody born within the United States. To change this or any other amendment, there has to be a proposal in Congress or a constitutional convention from two-thirds of the nation’s state legislatures. Thirty-eight of 50 states must approve any changes to the constitution.
The issue of birthright citizenship could be part of a larger immigration reform bill available for discussion in Congress by the end of the year. Authors of the yet-to-be-named bill will be looking at the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 for guidance. The act, which would end birthright citizenship, was introduced March 2 on the House floor and given to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, where it still sits. The reform package with a possible birthright citizenship ban will be presented to the full House first before it is assigned to a committee. If the bill is voted on by the full House, it will follow the same process in the Senate before going to President George W. Bush for his signature.
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Georgia, authored the reform act, securing 60 co-sponsors; nine of them are Texas Republicans: Kevin Brady, John R. Carter, Michael K. Conaway, John Abney Culberson, Sam Johnson, Kenny Marchant, Randy Neugebauer, Pete Sessions and Lamar Smith.
Many civil rights organizations say this is just another reactionary effort that eats away at this country’s founding principles.
Nathan Selzer, a representative of the Harlingen-based Valley Movement for Human Rights, said he was concerned about the latest anti-immigration move because they were attacks against citizenship. He said passing an immigration reform bill containing a ban on birthright citizenship would create "second-class citizenship."
"There’s no place for it," Selzer said. "It would require a constitutional amendment and striking one of the best constitutional amendments we’ve ever had. Let’s make it clear that everyone is equal under the law."
But Rep. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colorado, a co-sponsor of Deal’s bill, said birthright citizenship is simply an enticement for people to cross illegally into the United States and needs to be banned.
"I have not seen it cross both sides (of the aisle in the House), and I don’t know the extent there might be for change on the other side," Tancredo said in reference to Democrats during a phone interview this week with The Monitor while he was on the House floor. "My guess is it would be something they would not latch on to."
Tancredo said he might not need the support of border Democrats who object to a ban on birthright citizenship and other immigration reforms. Because illegal immigration has grown from its traditional presence in border areas to become a national concern, he might be able to count on interior state Democrats to join Republican reform efforts.
U.S. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, took offense at Tancredo’s comments.
"We deal with these issues day in and day out, and blatantly disregarding input from the border members of Congress in discussions about immigration reform would be a serious mistake," he said in a statement prepared for The Monitor.
Todd Smith, Deal’s deputy chief of staff, said the congressman has been concerned about illegal immigration because the poultry and carpet industries in north Georgia use undocumented foreign labor. Deal was unavailable for an interview. "It’s just an issue that has grown, grown more out of control," Smith said. "You see the gang violence, the issues, the things that go along with it."
Demetri Papademetriou, president of the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., said citizenship reforms stem from a lack of solutions to stop immigration from becoming an anything-goes procedure.
"I get frustrated by people who casually say, ‘Let’s just change it,’ like it’s yesterday’s sheets," he said. "These people tend to not know about history or law.
"I worry about the cohesion, the staying together of this country if we start distinguishing people on the basis of who were born here but (are) not part of this society," he said.
CAN IT WORK?
Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan polling firm based in Ocean Grove, N.J., released a survey Nov. 7 saying 49 percent of 1,500 adults polled in the United States said they supported ending birthright citizenship. Forty-one percent of them wanted the practice to remain in tact.
The survey included 37 percent each of Republicans and Democrats and 26 percent of people who were not members of any political party."To some people it (banning birthright citizenship) makes sense, because why should someone who is here illegally gain the benefit of citizenship?" said Scott Rasmussen, the firm’s president. "To others, it speaks of discrimination. There is, overall, a general feel that there is an idea that has some instinctive support and is worthy of a public debate. Where it goes from there, I’m not quite sure."
Families at the heart of birthright citizenship are of particular concern to the Washington, D.C.-based Hispanic advocacy and civil rights group National Council of La Raza,
Michele Waslin, the organization’s director of immigration policy research, said children are not responsible for the immigration status of their parents. Changes to birthright citizenship only would increase the number of undocumented immigrants and create a permanent underclass of American citizens.
Waslin describes talk of banning birthright citizenship as extremist and a way to attack American values.
"I think the American public is opposed to punishing innocent children," she said. "It’s irresponsible. It does nothing to enhance the immigration debate."
Tancredo, asked if reinstatement of the old immigration "quota" system would work, said quotas may limit who legally can enter the United States each year, but would separate families.
He said an equivalent of such a system already exists with the issuance of work and immigration visas.
"I think it would be harder to stop family unification than it would be to eliminate anchor baby provisions because people would say, my goodness, you are stopping people from being able to have their families join them," Tancredo said. "It’s an emotional argument that is made."
TWEAKING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
What indeed would cause debate would be a birthright citizenship ban that contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which allows that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically is a U.S. citizen.
Tancredo and Deal are using arguments made in Congress in 1868 to solidify their beliefs that the 14th Amendment’s language could be interpreted in different ways.
"In passing the 14th Amendment, (Sen. Lyman) Trumbull argued that the U.S.’s jurisdiction was meant to cover only persons who did ‘not ow(e) allegiance to anybody else,’ " Tancredo wrote recently in an op-ed piece his congressional office circulated. "(U.S. Sen. Jacob) Howard was even clearer, noting that the amendment ‘will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’"
The 14th Amendment states, "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."
Texas rejected the amendment on Oct. 27, 1866, but ratified it Feb. 18, 1870, according to information from the Emory University School of Law in Atlanta.
"It was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens," Smith said.
Mike Morrison, an immigration and municipal government professor at the Baylor University School of Law in Waco, said the words that could be up for interpretation in the amendment are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." He said the United States recognizes a citizen’s jus soli, Latin for "right of soil." People can be American citizens if they are born in a U.S.-held territory or land or on an Indian reservation.
"It does not matter, as long as they are subject to our jurisdiction," Morrison said. "It does not matter how the parent entered the U.S."
But the 14th Amendment would not apply to children born on foreign ships in American ports, he said.
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, said in a prepared statement for The Monitor that he did not like tampering with the Constitution.
Chris Paulitz, spokesman for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said homeland security needed to be considered if changes were made in how the 14th Amendment is interpreted.
"When parents from terrorist-harboring countries come to America temporarily and have children — with no intention of those children growing up American or supporting our country — their children are still U.S. citizens," Paulitz said in a statement prepared for The Monitor. "After growing up taught to hate America, they still have the ability to freely come and go in our country."
Deal chief of staff Smith, and Will Adams, Tancredo’s spokesman, both said the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could decide whether a birthright citizenship ban would go against the Constitution.
Morrison said overruling the 14th Amendment could be done with a proposal from Congress and with a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and three-fourths approval in the nation’s state Legislatures backing a new amendment that would nullify the original amendment.
Any decision to tamper with the 14th Amendment, whether in court or through legislation, could be considered an attack on the Constitution and American values, La Raza’s Waslin said.
"The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship many times, and this is just one of those things that makes the U.S. a great country," she said.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration which is against undocumented immigrants coming to the nation, said defeated congressmen sent back to their home districts would make room for new people who could bring fresh ideas on reforming immigration issues.
Tampering with birthright citizenship would be an "unfortunately necessary move" to shore up what he considers the exploitation of American generosity and sensitivity, Gheen said.
"You cannot bring millions of people (from) the Third World rapidly into your country without the country becoming the Third World environment they left," he said. "We can all enjoy higher crime rates, gang rule, once-vanquished diseases, lower income rates, more poverty, lower education rates, greater tax burdens."
Voters also could have a voice in the matter of birthright citizenship and Constitutional amendments, the Migration Policy Institute’s Papademetriou said, and some races for public office next year could face, as a hot-button issue, how America treats foreigners.
"More people will decide to run on or against immigration," he said. "I don’t think we want that. It’s too much of an emotional issue to decide who our representatives will be. The country has more important fish to fry."
I assume you are talking about the technicality I mentioned. I agree that the Constitution says what it says. I think that a reasonable court might have found a way not to intrude in the government's handling of battle field detainees whether they happened to be US citizens or not, but particularly if they happened to be merely technical US citizens and had essentially never lived in the US after their parents moved them out at a young age. Reasonable courts don't put the executive nor the legislature in the position where they might have to reduce our rights to protect the nation.
Lawyers, particularly Supreme Court level lawyers, are suppose to be good at distinguishing cases and isn't the ability to distinguish cases and get the "desired" outcome what makes for famous, well respected jurists? Maybe the Surpreme Court will finally find a way to do this.
Sounds like this already addressed in the 14th. Amending again won't make any difference if this is already ignored. It will just make another clause to ignore.
About 30 years overdue...
But better late than never...
It goes without saying that this does not apply to children of two legal native-born citizens...
Doesn't sound like such a bad idea. It seems silly to give the newborn automatic citizenship in preference to the parents. It might be tradition, but so is the one remaining reason for the British monarchy. On the other hand, I'm curious about just how much it would affect U.S. immigration.
bump
That's another goofy provision (constitutional or otherwise). Voters can and should decide for themselves whether a U.S. citizen is sufficiently American or not to hold the office of the Presidency. If you think they'd put some wierdo like Tom Lantos in office, we might as well ban free elections and put the Supreme Court in charge of everything.
Well of course it's to do the job's most American's won't do..!
Get with the program...!!
ping
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
It's because of that crap that I made this parody on what to send the RNC when they ask for money. I even released a supersized printer-friendly version for such use. :o)
They get a copy of this every time I get a letter for donations.
CITIZENSHIP NEED NOT BE REDEFINED
It is just a problem with immigration law. Just because some kid is a constitutional citizen by being born here, the Constitution does not require you let the whole family in. All that is needed is a change in the statutes not to allow the child's status to prevent deportation of illegal parents. That's not against the Constitution. The choice then to be given them is for the child to stay and be permanently and anonymously adopted by U.S. citizens without disclosure of status or for the parents to renounce in writing the child's U.S. citizenship and take the child back with them. Yes, that is hard-hearted. But what is so complicated about changing immigration law?
Way overdue, but better late than never. It won't take the quisling crowd long to attack this as "unfair", "xenophobic" and "racist".
A ban on birthright citizenship would simply make the child the same nationality as its parents. It would not affect children born to legal resident aliens or to naturalized citizens. It would affect children born to illegal aliens and to people here on temporary non-immigrant visas.
"There's no place for it," Selzer said. "It would require a constitutional amendment and striking one of the best constitutional amendments we've ever had.
I'd love to know why he thinks this is the "best constitutional amendment we've ever had".
"Let's make it clear that everyone is equal under the law."
If that was true, there would be close to zero illegal aliens in this country and employers of illegal aliens would have either been fined or jailed by now.
What "anti-Mexican faction" are you referring to? Or are you just blowing hot air for the hell of it?
I agree, but as I told BQ earlier, I am cynical this will go anywhere.
marker
Yes, I feel the same way. Never under estimate the ability of our Hispandering GOP Big Tent Washington crapweasels to cave at the first whiff of gunpowder from the pro-illegal alien Rats.
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.
