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

Skip to comments.

The Truth About Anchor Babies
Townhall.com ^ | September 13, 2010 | Bruce Bialosky

Posted on 09/13/2010 5:16:18 AM PDT by Kaslin

The explosion of an issue on the national scene often seems to come from nowhere. That is really a misconception; what more accurately defines the process is that the issue bubbles to the surface of our culture and finally reaches what is called a “tipping point.” The definition of “tipping point” is the moment at which an object is displaced from a state of stable equilibrium into a new and different state. That has now occurred with what has become known as “anchor babies,” and the problem lies with the misinformation that has been bantered about.

The common argument against changing how we treat babies born here of “illegal immigrants” goes back to our Constitution. To effectively deal with matters after the American Civil War, including treatment of the newly-freed slaves, an omnibus amendment (the 14th) was adopted in 1868. Some people who argue for retaining the status quo claim that the protection of birthright is the sole matter of that amendment and to change our law would gut that amendment. Section 1 of the amendment states: “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.” It is a very important part of that section, but it is not all of that section and just a portion of the amendment.

I have read that clause over and over again and I don’t see where it says “even if they are here illegally.” Of course, at that time, there weren’t immigration laws like we have today. The entirely reasonable concerns that we now have about border control didn’t exist 150 years ago. Does anyone really believe that the people living in that era deliberately adopted an amendment that would allow people to come here illegally, have babies, and then make the argument that the child was an American citizen? That would be quite doubtful.

The same people who argue that the amendment awards U. S. Citizenship to the children of illegal aliens also lead you to believe that the courts have adjudicated this matter. Actually, they have not. What the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is that children of permanent resident aliens (a classification under the immigration laws comprised of people who are here legally) are deemed to be U.S. Citizens. Our Supreme Court has never stated that the child of an illegal alien is automatically a citizen.

Some very good people argue passionately against changing the law. Linda Chavez, a Republican and someone for whom I have immense respect did so in a recent article published here in Townhall. She made a strong case; it is just that she is wrong. We are not advocating that the amendment be changed. But, historically, Americans have never given benefits to people who do things illegally, and the proposal is merely to clarify the language and intent of the amendment for the benefit of the confused.

There is another reason that people have adopted the impression that the law covers the children of illegal aliens – it is because the issue was rarely asserted. If a person came here illegally a century ago and had a baby, they would give birth with a midwife and then raise the child by their own means. The world has changed. People come here and have babies in hospitals. Even a simple birth can run $10,000. If the baby is a preemie, the bill can be as high as $500,000. Once they leave the hospital, they can be supported by their parents or they can become beneficiaries of the state. In one year alone, Los Angeles County spent over $50 million on welfare benefits for the children of illegal aliens. That does not include other governmental costs, such as expenses borne by the state and federal bureaucracies. That is just one county. We are a uniquely humane and generous country, but very few people who understand the real costs would endorse these expenditures. It has little to do with the fact that they are foreigners or the color of their skin. It has everything to do with them being here illegally, and, while we are a humane country, we are also a country of laws. Illegal aliens, by definition, are not following the process and are not abiding by our laws.

Canada and the United States are the only advanced economies that still grant citizenship to babies born of illegal immigrants. 164 countries have eliminated this benefit. That is not to say we shouldn’t declare these babies to be citizens because other countries don’t. We should eliminate anchor babies because it is the correct public policy for our citizens, and an expression of fairness to all of the people who aspire to become American citizens.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; anchorbabies; notuscitizens

1 posted on 09/13/2010 5:16:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Justfying the arguement upon money is wrongheaded because it undermines the arguement against abortion.

Americans have never given benefits to people who do things illegally, - is a better moral argument.

2 posted on 09/13/2010 5:29:40 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; ...
RE :”The same people who argue that the amendment awards U. S. Citizenship to the children of illegal aliens also lead you to believe that the courts have adjudicated this matter. Actually, they have not. What the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is that children of permanent resident aliens (a classification under the immigration laws comprised of people who are here legally) are deemed to be U.S. Citizens. Our Supreme Court has never stated that the child of an illegal alien is automatically a citizen. .....
.There is another reason that people have adopted the impression that the law covers the children of illegal aliens – it is because the issue was rarely asserted. If a person came here illegally a century ago and had a baby, they would give birth with a midwife and then raise the child by their own means. The world has changed. People come here and have babies in hospitals. Even a simple birth can run $10,000. If the baby is a preemie, the bill can be as high as $500,000. Once they leave the hospital, they can be supported by their parents or they can become beneficiaries of the state. In one year alone, Los Angeles County spent over $50 million on welfare benefits for the children of illegal aliens. That does not include other governmental costs, such as expenses borne by the state and federal bureaucracies. That is just one county

Exactly!

3 posted on 09/13/2010 5:41:40 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Section 1 is a classic loophole in the law that needs to be closed immediately by the Supreme court.


4 posted on 09/13/2010 5:46:00 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

There is nothing wrong with discussing the fiscal impact of adding 400,000 anchor babies every year, most of whom use Medicaid, food stamps, etc. When you try to make good public policy, you need reliable data. Resources spent on the children of illegals is morally wrong as well. Right now, the children are LEGAL under our existing law.


5 posted on 09/13/2010 5:56:38 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Wasn't it Newsweek that labeled Obama an "anchor baby?"


6 posted on 09/13/2010 7:19:38 AM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrioleFan
And how many Social Security numbers has he used in his lifetime?
7 posted on 09/13/2010 7:21:29 AM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...

**************

That one line settles the whole argument.

Illegal aliens are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children are NOT instant citizens. A baby born to a citizen of foreign allegiance is likewise a foreign citizen, no matter where the birth takes place, whether in Boston or on the moon!

Does a child born to the Swedish ambassador to the U.N. become a U.S. citizen if the kid was born in New York City? I think not.

Congress needs to pass a "Sense of the Congress" resolution to settle this. An Amendment to the Constitution is not required.

8 posted on 09/13/2010 7:26:03 AM PDT by DNME (With the sound of distant drums ... something wicked this way comes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNME
Correct. Libtards would have us return to the era before 1854, when immigrants were freely admitted based solely on their declared intent to become American citizens.

The first immigration processing facility was opened at Castle Garden, in southern Manhattan in 1855. Not every entrant was admitted. By 1890, the number of immigrants had grown so large that the much larger and more famous facility was opened at Ellis Island. Even in its heyday, Ellis Island rejected about 5% of all prospective immigrants. The most common reasons were disease, criminal background or the strong possibility that the immigrant would become a public charge.

There is no logic to sustain the contention that the growing anchor baby problem was accepted as an end run around even the fairly lenient immigration screening rules in effect during the Ellis Island era or even the more lenient Castle Garden Era.

It is true, however, that immigration from Mexico has had historically lenient status. President Taft and Wilson looked the other way when Mexican refugees flowed over our borders as a result of the 1910-20 revolution and subsequent civil war there plus our own desire to cope with labor shortages as a result of World War I. But this was followed by aggressive deportation in the 1930's as a result of the economic contractions of that era.

The pendulum swung back during World War II, when FDR's policies did a U-Turn to cope with labor shortages from that war. But again, within a decade, those shortages disappeared and President Eisenhower moved to deport those same illegals with an equal or even greater degree of success as FDR.

The anchor baby thing didn't even become a topic until 1965, almost a century after the 14th amendment was ratified, when Ted Kennedy's loosey-goosey immigration law was enacted and expanded by Earl Warren's activist supreme court.

9 posted on 09/13/2010 8:46:29 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuntB; Tennessee Nana; raybbr; TADSLOS; Kimberly GG; La Lydia; Kaslin; ...
Another anchor baby scam: Illegals get SS nos for all their A/B. The parents use the SS nos to establish several identities......to get all kinds of govt freebies, mortgages, voter registration, SSI, welfare, food stamps etc, etc, etc......under several identities.

==============================================

Man ordered to repay $3M in Calif employment fraud
San Francisco Chronicle | June 26, 2010
FR Posted June 26, 2010 by artichokegrower

A former Marysville resident has been sentenced to prison and ordered to pay back $3 million in fraudulently obtained unemployment compensation. U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner says 31-year-old Manuel Mejia Ordonez was sentenced Friday to eight years and one month in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and identity theft. (Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

How does a citizen of Mexico make $3 million in unemployment claims? By establishing multiple identities. The guy----Manuel Mejia Ordonez----got eight years for conspiracy to commit mail fraud........and identity theft.

10 posted on 09/13/2010 10:02:49 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liz; AuntB

But I thought they come here to work? :)


11 posted on 09/13/2010 10:06:47 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Right now, the children are LEGAL under our existing law.
__________________________________________

No, actually right now there is no law that makes them legal..

The 14th Amendment only makes the children of black former slaves legal American citizens ...

It was not passed to make the children of illegal aliens legal citizens..

Even the children of foreign diplomats here legally as our guests cant get American citizenshiip merely by being born here..

and the children of NATIVE AMERICANS were not included either..

That took another law later..


12 posted on 09/13/2010 10:08:51 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Guess what’s in those backpacks they bring across the border?

It’s instructions from Mexico on how to drain the US Treasury.


13 posted on 09/13/2010 10:59:40 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liz; AuntB; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne
RE :”Guess what’s in those backpacks they bring across the border? It’s instructions from Mexico on how to drain the US Treasury.

They don't need those, the federal government advertises to them how to drain the system just like they advertise that they (illegals) are entitled to minimum wage and overtime.

14 posted on 09/13/2010 11:50:22 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The author never read the 1996 immigration reform.

Birthright citizenship and anchor baby are two DIFFERENT legal issues.

Custody follows the parents of the minor not the other way around. When illegal pararents are deported the citizen child goes with them. (the citizen can return at 18) but then there is no claim for the offspring that were born outside the USA for citizenship.


15 posted on 09/13/2010 11:58:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Sorry, but they are legal under existing law, i.e., U S Code. They are given all of the rights and entitlements of US citizens whether it be passports, SSNs, food stamps, etc. That has been the case for decades.

I am very well acquainted with the legal issues. Congress will have to pass a law revoking birthright citizenship. It will be challenged and go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds the law, then it is over. If not, then a Constitutional amenmendment will be necessary if we want to end it. I do.

16 posted on 09/13/2010 12:48:24 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Sorry, but they are legal under existing law, i.e., U S Code. They are given all of the rights and entitlements of US citizens whether it be passports, SSNs, food stamps, etc. That has been the case for decades.
______________________________________________

Yes its been the case...

and No its not legal...


17 posted on 09/13/2010 1:06:03 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Could you please elaborate on the differances of birthright citizenship and anchor babies. And could you also explain the two different legal arguments.

I have not heard of this before.

thank you in advance


18 posted on 09/13/2010 5:07:38 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Yes its been the case...and No its not legal...

Of course it is legal. Words have meanings. We recognize birthright citizenship in this country. The law as passed by Congress specifically authorizes it. I have been involved in the passport inssuance process. If a person has a valid birth certificate showing that he/she was born on US soil, that person is deemed a US citizen except in some rare circumstances having to do with accredited diplomats and some others.

Until the law is changed by Congress, birthright citizenship still is the law of the land. Stop trying to make the ridiculous argument that it is "not legal." Read the law damn it.

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

19 posted on 09/13/2010 5:25:16 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Anchor Baby and Birthright Citizenship are two seperate legal issues:

Birthright Citizenship is simply citizenship which is obtained simply by being born in the United States or territories. It is a personal legality and has nothing to do with the family.

Anchor Baby is the old concept where “custody followed the citizen”. This was eliminated in 1996 with the immigration reforms eliminated this. Now, under the law, custody follows the parents. Thus the minor citizen goes back with the deported parents.

Bills like the “Dream Act” function as blanket amnesty by having “cutody follow the minor” of any child in the USA and in public school. Citizen or no citizen.

Another thing to remember is that in order to claim birthright citizenship from a US born citizen, the us born citizen has to have lived in the USA for ten years.

all this is outlined in USCIS.gov (formerly INS) The media pushes the meme in order to have the fiction of family separation which is a legal fiction for immigration lawyer and paralegal services.


20 posted on 09/14/2010 5:10:26 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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

Ping!


21 posted on 09/14/2010 10:48:28 AM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well, even if we didn’t change anything else, no benefit should accrue to the parent, ie they should not be allowed to stay here.


22 posted on 09/14/2010 11:05:44 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
What's at issue is the willful misinterpretation of the first sentence.

In issuing passports to anyone with a birth certificate you participated in this process of willful misinterpretation. This has been the de facto position for a few decades now, and I'm sure that if you indeed worked for the State Department then you had instructions to do so. If you did.

But agency regulations and legal reality don't always meet, do they? Because the agency writes what it wants until somebody challenges it.

The citizens of foreign nations do not have the right to break into our country and then decide who the citizenry of the next generation will be.

Such a thing violates the concept of consent of the governed. We do not wish to be governed by the nationals of a foreign nation, and that is what the children of illegal aliens are. Don't believe me? Ask the government of Mexico, for example. They do in fact claim that such children are their nationals as well.

I agree. But I don't agree that they are "our" nationals as well.

No one in their right mind would.

Since you're so knowledgeable on this subject, you must also know that clarifying statutes have been introduced into the Congress since the early 1990's which defines "and subject to the jurisdiction". They have not gone anywhere because of Democrat (mainly) opposition.

They want the aliens to be able to vote for them, since they have lost the support of the Americans.

Eventually such a statute will pass. This is what the Congressional chattering class understands now.

So the debate will be over.

But just because you use swear words, epithets, and table pounding to try to convince the rest of us that some kid whose mother crawled under the fence from Tijuana to get to the hospital in San Diego is an "American" doesn't make it true.

23 posted on 09/14/2010 1:10:35 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OrioleFan

Is Newsweek saying that all those celebrities listed to the right are “anchor babies,” that they were born to parents here illegally? I would doubt that!


24 posted on 09/14/2010 1:48:29 PM PDT by Nea Wood (Silly liberal . . . paychecks are for workers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

I think news weak was trying to say what’s the big deal about anchor babies. However, listing Obama put the White House back on their heels.


25 posted on 09/14/2010 2:15:48 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
What's at issue is the willful misinterpretation of the first sentence. In issuing passports to anyone with a birth certificate you participated in this process of willful misinterpretation. This has been the de facto position for a few decades now, and I'm sure that if you indeed worked for the State Department then you had instructions to do so. If you did.

Willful misinterpretation? Baloney. It is the law of the land until changed by Congress. Until Congress passes another law and amends the US Code, this "misinterpretation" obtains as it has for more than 6 decades. You can't unring a bell.

But agency regulations and legal reality don't always meet, do they? Because the agency writes what it wants until somebody challenges it.

Congress passes the law, which then forms the basis for agency regulations. Congress has never challenged this "misinterpretation" nor has any agency employee been charged with implementing them illegally.

Such a thing violates the concept of consent of the governed. We do not wish to be governed by the nationals of a foreign nation, and that is what the children of illegal aliens are. Don't believe me? Ask the government of Mexico, for example. They do in fact claim that such children are their nationals as well.

I am strongly for ending birthright citizehship [jus solis.] The only issue is how to end it. Congress can pass a law ending it citing the "misinterpretation" of the 14th amendment. More than likely, the law will be challenged and referred to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds the new law, birthright citizenship is over. However, if they don't, then the next step is a constitutional amendment similar to what Ireland did a few years ago when it ended birthright citizenship, the last country in Europe to do so.

Until then, we continue to give citizenship to 400,000 anchor babies a year most of whom were born using Medicaid money and who will receive food stamps and other social welfare benefits. It is an insane policy, but I can tell you as a member of a grassroots immigration organization that lobbies on the Hill and in Richmond, this is going to be a very tough sell to get Congress to pass such a law. The other side is well funded and has strong political backing. The Democrat Party, La Raza, the Catholic Church, and others will fight tooth and nail to prevent any such law from being passed. and it is then

26 posted on 09/14/2010 3:41:45 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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