Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 09/01/2010 10:33:55 AM PDT by neverdem

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.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker. 
He is the author of Death by Liberalism


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens

1 posted on 09/01/2010 10:33:58 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Being shipped back to Mexico builds character.


2 posted on 09/01/2010 10:39:10 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Being shipped back to Mexico builds character.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; AuntB

PING


3 posted on 09/01/2010 10:43:29 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

End of Argument

4 posted on 09/01/2010 10:44:12 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Lazy effort. He clearly didn't read Chief Justice Fuller's minority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. It is heavily excerpted, along with discussion of the proper context of the Slaughterhouse Cases here.
5 posted on 09/01/2010 10:44:12 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

It might be just as accurate to call them "extortion" babies, because if a non-citizen breaks our laws and enters the US illegally, for the purpose of having a child on US soil, then our present nonsensical laws allow the parents to legally extort money from the US Treasury and rights of citizenship from all levels of government on and on.

That is the real intent, to have the baby on US soil so they can legally extort or extract benefits on and on.

6 posted on 09/01/2010 10:46:31 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good post!


7 posted on 09/01/2010 10:47:34 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
He clearly didn't read Chief Justice Fuller's minority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. It is heavily excerpted, along with discussion of the proper context of the Slaughterhouse Cases.

You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

8 posted on 09/01/2010 10:48:28 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Congressman Billybob; Liberty Valance; everyone
FROM CONGRESSMAN BILLYBOB;

post #11

Like many Members of Congress, McConnell is fuzzy on the Constitution. The last clause of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to enforce it, by “appropriate legislation.” The first paragraph refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

There is NO NEED to amend the Constitution. Congress only has to pass appropriate legislation to make the problem of anchor babies disappear. All it takes is reading the Constitution, a task that some Congressmen and many reporters are unable to do.

John / Billybob

- - - - - - -

Krauthammer: Dead Wrong on the 14th

Special to FreeRepublic| 5 August 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

9 posted on 09/01/2010 10:57:46 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

Oh please, you can't be serious asking me that. OK, here's your "duh" caveat: The purpose of dissenting opinions is to facilitate possible future reversal by pointing out the flaws in the majority opinion.

Happy now?

Fuller's dissenting opinion on Wong Kim Ark is a thing of beauty, a truly worthy read on some of the key principles of liberty under law. If one is looking for reasons to dispute current policy, isn't that good enough reason to consult it?

10 posted on 09/01/2010 10:57:50 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Congressman Billybob

bump to the top!


11 posted on 09/01/2010 11:03:08 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: everyone
I urge everyone to read our late Congressman BillyBob's explanation of the 14th Amendment which I've linked above.

12 posted on 09/01/2010 11:07:45 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance; Congressman Billybob

Thank you!
BTTT


13 posted on 09/01/2010 11:08:21 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Is that picture from Saturday night live?


14 posted on 09/01/2010 11:12:37 AM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Congressman Billybob was wrong about the 14th in the following respect: It actually forbids anchor babies because the 14th only applies to those "subject to the jurisdiction," not those merely within the jurisdiction. Hence, because the Constitution is a limiting document, Congress has no power to confer citizenship on those within, but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Any alien, resident or illegal, is within, but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All you have to do is read a law dictionary contemporary to the time the Amendment was drafted to see how those who wrote and ratified it understood the word "subject."

15 posted on 09/01/2010 11:17:20 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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

Ping!


16 posted on 09/01/2010 11:27:35 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: tbw2

That is former United States Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney from Georgia who was asked to show her ID badge because she came to work one day looking like that.


17 posted on 09/01/2010 11:37:06 AM PDT by GeorgeTex (Obama-Four M President (Mendacious Manchurian Muslim Marxist))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

So, in your view, is there a need to amend the Constitution, given Brennan’s mendacious footnote??


18 posted on 09/01/2010 11:42:02 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: onyx
our late Congressman BillyBob's

Has BillyBob died?

19 posted on 09/01/2010 11:48:41 AM PDT by itsahoot (We the people allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It actually forbids anchor babies because the 14th only applies to those "subject to the jurisdiction,"

And yet all the king's horses, and all the king's men, can't make heads nor tails of plain English, maybe they should press 2 for Spanish version.

20 posted on 09/01/2010 11:51:26 AM PDT by itsahoot (We the people allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Oh, dear, yes. I will link you to the thread for him.

Congressman BillyBob Has Died

21 posted on 09/01/2010 11:58:55 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: onyx
So, in your view, is there a need to amend the Constitution, given Brennan’s mendacious footnote??

Absolutely not. IMO, all this talk about legislation and amendment is a red herring.

22 posted on 09/01/2010 12:00:34 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The SC's ruling in WKA is as convoluted an approach as the one adopted by the Court to construct the dubious Miller decision with regards to the Second Amendment.
23 posted on 09/01/2010 12:04:26 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Although amending the Constitution would be conclusive on the issue, it is not required.

Section 5 of the amendment states: “Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Even the “new converts” to the illegal alien baby issue, like Lindsey Graham, seem not to be aware of this provision.

The 14th amendment claims on nativity as sole criteria are not absolute. If they were, then it would apply to all babies born in the United States. But children of diplomats do not qualify, nor do children of foreign military stationed in the United States under status of forces agreements.

A true test of a Republican Congress in 2011 would be legislation specifically defining the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. 75% of the citizenry already agrees that anchor babies should not get citizenship. Let’s see if the Republicans are truly listening, or will they fall back to the McCain/Rove/Graham/Bush deafness on illegal alien trespassers.


24 posted on 09/01/2010 12:09:08 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent gave me a much better understanding. Thank you for taking the time with me and thanks for the link.


25 posted on 09/01/2010 12:22:55 PM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Hoofin’ it back to Mexico builds muscle.


26 posted on 09/01/2010 12:22:55 PM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldbill
There will be hope, provided Joe Miller wins in November and I'm all but certain he will. He will need to sit on the Judiciary committee. :)

"I asked him, what do you see as your first responsibility as a senator?" Campbell said. "And [Miller] said, to determine if any of the bills in front of me are Constitutional."

Yee-haw!!!!

27 posted on 09/01/2010 12:27:08 PM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent gave me a much better understanding.

Beautiful isn't it? He understands that citizenship is as much a collective claim upon the individual as it is a matter of membership, right, or entitlement.

Thank you for taking the time with me and thanks for the link.

I authored all the articles and the two books at that site.

28 posted on 09/01/2010 12:35:14 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Oh, wow! Congratulations! Very impressive. I am not a lawyer and your linked material wasn’t stressful to read or understand.


29 posted on 09/01/2010 1:55:38 PM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I am not a lawyer and your linked material wasn’t stressful to read or understand.

The articles on that page (particularly the first 4) detail a history that is badly understood, but underlies much of the creeping tyranny we face. Enjoy!

30 posted on 09/01/2010 2:32:49 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Carry_Okie

Thanks for the links!


31 posted on 09/01/2010 3:25:31 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Thanks for the links!

Thank you for your consistency and energy.

32 posted on 09/01/2010 3:33:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
The Re-Hollowing of the Military

Seventy percent of Americans know they've been conned

GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

The Failure of the Liberal Economic Experiment?

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

33 posted on 09/01/2010 10:30:09 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks, Neverdem.

BTT to ponder.


34 posted on 09/01/2010 11:29:07 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


35 posted on 09/02/2010 8:01:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; hennie pennie; AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; ...

Thanks neverdem


36 posted on 09/02/2010 6:12:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
I read today that Mitt Romney's parents were both born in MEXICO, and that Mitt is an anchor baby -- and thus ineligible to become POTUS.
37 posted on 09/02/2010 6:47:11 PM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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