Thread: Anchor Babies Weigh Down Economy

Anchor Babies Weigh Down Economy
JOHN REINIERS, Special to Hernando Today

Published: January 26, 2008

About every six months the population of the U.S. increases about as much as the population of Tallahassee. Who are these hundreds of thousands of new citizens? They are newborns, children of illegal aliens born in the United States - birthright citizens, "anchor babies" - not illegal aliens. This quirky legal right then allows the mother's parents and siblings to remain, and later a whole bunch of their relatives to immigrate legally. This why they are also known as "Jackpot babies."

Just consider Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the U.S. In 2006, 70 percent of the women giving birth in Parkland were illegal immigrants. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million to deliver these babies, the feds another $9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in $31.3 million. The average illegal patient is 25 years old and giving birth to her second anchor baby. We could also talk about California, but you get the point.

By law, illegal immigrants cannot be denied medical care based on their inability to pay or their immigration status. These women also receive free prenatal care, medication, car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.

The U.S. and a few other countries offer citizenship to anyone born on their soil. The United Kingdom and Australia abandoned this practice in the 1980s after being abused by immigrants for many years.

Why do we allow this to continue? The 14{+t}{+h} Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 states wherein they reside...

It was added to our Constitution right after the Civil War as part of a package of reforms to prevent any more injustices to African Americans, such as states denying citizenship to native born blacks. The drafters of the "Citizenship clause" made it clear from their debate, that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that the status of the parents of a child born within the territory of the U.S. determines whether of not that child is eligible for U.S. citizenship.

There have been surprisingly few Supreme Court opinions construing this clause - the results being a mixed bag of decisions. The lawyer in me wants to go into detail, but let me be mercifully brief: The latest case involved a terrorist who happened to be born in Louisiana, when his father, a native of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, was working as an engineer for Exxon. He returned to Saudi Arabia as an infant, took up with al Qaeda as an adult, was captured during a battle in Afghanistan and wound up imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court held that this Saudi, being Louisiana born, had a due process right as a citizen to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. This ruling simply does not comform with any of the text or history surrounding the adoption of the Citizenship Clause. Just being born in the U.S. doesn't cut it, because such an interpretation renders the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause entirely redundant. It is a well settled doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts - most certainly the Constitution - are not to be interpreted to make some words altogether redundant. In other words why didn't the drafters just say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States?" (Imagine two terrorists - man and wife jihadis - slipping past border guards into a U.S. city to set up a terrorist cell. The wife then gives birth to a child. Should this budding young terrorist be an instant American citizen?)

Help could be on the way, but don't hold your breath. In 2007, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced H.R. 1940, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. For those Americans who look to Europe - the cradle of our American civilization - for guidance, Ireland, in 2004 voted to end automatic citizenship. That was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of just being born there.

The political fallout of this bill could be enormous.

Patriotism is when the love of your own people comes first. Politics, for Democrats, is thinking of the next election, and not what is best for the next generation of Americans. With that in mind, illegal aliens and their progeny will continue to be one more group on the list of Democrat constituencies.

John Reiniers, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill.
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2 ... /#comments

I've got to tell you, I was not aware that children born to illegal aliens were granted automatic US citizenship until I started reading Alipac. Never saw ONE article in the msm about it. Many people I have spoken to were also unaware of this. When they found out, the reaction was stunned silence followed by understandable anger.

It needs to be publicized over and over and over again, in as many ways as possible. That's the only way voters will find out.

In any of the presidential debates, has this question been asked? How can two illegal aliens make a legal citizen?

Those of us,unfortunately, who have been living with illegal aliens have been fully aware of the citizenship problem. Beats me why our leaders,especially Republicans do nothing. The Democrats want their votes for sure and the Republicans think they'll get their votes but they never will,period. I think those of us in the West and Southwest have been more aware of this because they've always been here.

As far as the Illegal Immigrant hoard is concerned... It's how to make MO Money; with YO Money"

It sickens me to see them get benifits that American Citizens cannot get from our own government

Canada also ended birthright citizenship. I believe it was 5-10 years ago.

Open borders advocates routinely deflect questions about ending it here with the red herring that it is too hard to amend the Constitution. Birth right citizenship in the U.S. is only a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which was intended solely for the purpose of making sure that freed slaves would not be denied citizenship.

Thus it would only take a law, or a Supreme Court decision, not an amendment, to end this ridiculous practice. One reason why it may not yet have gone to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling is that we have not been able to trust the Supreme Court to abide by the Constitution.

I'd love to hear a lawyer argue before the bench that we can be absolutely certain that the authors of the 14th amendment did not intend that the ability to copulate should be a ticket to U.S. citizenship. When the laughter dies down, the Supremes would look like fools if they did not abrogate birthright citizenship.

It's all about getting the right people in the right places.

It's all about getting the right people in the right places.

100% correct but also making sure only citizens vote.

So very true.