Thread: Born Here Means Automatic US Citizenship

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/art ... ml?id=9868

by Warner Todd Huston
Born Here Means Automatic US Citizenship - Should We Change That?
November 12, 2005 10:42 PM EST

You may have heard the term anchor baby?

This term is used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to describe babies born within the borders of the USA, its territories and protectorates to foreign nationals, babies that are then used by these illegal immigrants to gain access to US social services as well as entry into the country. As things stand today, any child born within US territory is an automatic citizen. And, since we are a compassionate people, we cannot just have babies running around as citizens without allowing their parents some legitimacy, even if shadowy, to live in the US to raise and support that child. Hence, the "anchor" part of the moniker. Illegals have babies to make sure that they are allowed to stay in this great country more often than is comfortable, for sure. Congress may be re-visiting this concept and looking toward taking away the automatic part of being born a citizen for some, instituting stricter guidelines. UPI quoted Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) as saying, "There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally". And he is only echoing many that feel the same way. It cannot be said that we haven't a problem with immigration, our security also cannot be ignored, and the costs of illegals availing themselves of our generous social programs is a huge problem, so stricter requirements for citizenship is a proper subject to discuss. Still, we are a compassionate people and we must approach this issue with care. Further more, this is the land of opportunity as well as a country built upon immigration and we mustn't change that aspect of our nation over a temporary border problem with our neighbor or a security issue that will not always stay imminent. Some lawmakers, however, are saying that such a change could only be made by a Constitutional convention to somehow change the 14th Amendment, created in 1866 to allow former slaves to attain citizenship following the Civil War. I think these lawmakers might be correct. A proposal to limit the automatic citizenship for some children is by parsing the word "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Here how the 14th amendment begins: "Section 1. 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."

One might construe "jurisdiction" as not applying to a child born to illegals because the child's parent's allegiance to their home country is assumed to be preeminent. And if the parents do not hold an allegiance to the USA, neither will the child as it grows up. In that case the "jurisdiction" of said state or the federal government does not apply since no fealty to said government will be observed by that child. But this is a reach that strains credulity for a constructionist such as myself. (After all, a child born of perfectly patriotic parents might grow up to be the next Michael Moore!)

Obviously, the Amendment was aimed at making former slaves into legal citizens of the country and was not aimed at illegal aliens who enter the USA just for its social programs. After all, the Congress of 1866 didn't have any such programs to offer and the problem was not one they could have foreseen. But a failure of foresight in this case is not a sufficient reason to alter the Constitution today. Let us look at the Amendment's language. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States". It doesn't say all persons whose parent's first vowed fealty to the USA are citizens, it says ALL people born here are citizens. And, it is quite plain that "jurisdiction" simply meant within the confines therein and was not being used in any other way. I have to say that anyone trying to write laws that restricts citizenship further than the 14th Amendment are not only barking up the wrong tree but are looking to alter a fundamental aspect of the American system. We have, since inception, imagined that this country would be a haven for those looking for a better life for themselves AND their children. Should we make it too difficult to become an American citizen we will weaken this principle. Further, we need immigration to continue expanding our economy as we always have since before we even became the USA. And there is one more thing that we need to avoid the results of which if instituted here would result in the situation that is being played out in Europe today. Many countries in Europe have refused a sense of full citizenship to its own immigrant population and this, in turn, has "Balkanized" that immigrant population so much that they are now in riots across Europe over their perceived alienation. They have not become vested in the system under which they live and are agitating for further separation yet. This is a death knell to a society and one we do not want rung in the United States. To aim a law that limits citizenship at illegal Mexicans whose children are born in the USA can similarly serve to segregate those children from the system here, leaving them on the outside looking in and growing to hate it all. If we do this we may well be, several decades down the line, setting ourselves up for the same thrashing that France is now taking from its alienated immigrant population. No, if we have a border problem we should address that problem head on and not try to go around the back door and shut off citizenship for all time to come for certain people over a problem we are having today. Being considered a citizen of the US upon birth within its borders is a concept that should remain sacrosanct. If we change that simple and straightforward process we open the door for all manner of re-interpretation at any given time. And that would undermine the very basis of being an American. The illegal immigration issue is important for us to deal with, and deal with quickly. But changing citizenship requirements is not the way to do it.

Of course, I completely disagree with this writer. I don't believe the Founding Fathers even DREAMED of ILLEGAL immigrants having babies here and that we would have been faced with giving them citizenship just because they were born here. These anchor babies are a HUGE drain on our resources and, frankly, if they are "left on the outside looking in", their parents should hoof it back across the border and let them grow up in their own country where they would feel accepted.

I can assure you that if the Founding Fathers saw those pregnant women crawling across the border just to drop a kid to then claim I can't leave I need to stay with my baby, they would have kicked them both back, without medical attention, no questions asked.

At the time of the 14th Amendment, folks that had been running slave ships threw the women and children overboard when food ran short so there would be enough for the crew and male slaves.

There was a great deal of hard practicality laced in our heritage.

Fortunately as times became easier and minds and hearts grew closer to God, things improved as they should have.

BUT to grant American Citizenship under the US Constitution or the 14th Amendment as a reward for violating our laws is complete absurdity.

I'm just curious. When did this practice start?? It just seems like I've only heard about it in the past couple of years but it's possible that it's because it only became a big issue to me in that time period. It just seems to me like it was ASSUMED that, because ANY baby born here, they became a citizen and nobody ever even THOUGHT about the fact that the mother was not here LEGALLY.

Whenever it started, it needs to STOP TODAY if not sooner.

I completely disagree with this writers and it is a wide interpretation by far.

I recently attended a Constitution Conference by many well known and are part of the Federalist Org and it was an Q&A in regards to the 14th Amendment and it was directed at the issue of the Illegals. The writer in the article and the interpretation is way off base and is really making a wide interpretation like most judges that would legislate from the bench.

They spoke directly about the Jurisdiction and its interpretation and the way they said it is to be is that a person that is born her and has an offspring is in the jurisdiction of the United States and most normal people would interpret it in that manner. It doesn’t mean that if a person gives birth to child by someone who isn’t a legal citizen, the United States gives its approval though people that are citizens which the United States enforces though its jurisdiction.

This is just sad.

Pro

Under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, if Uday were still alive, he could visit the United States on a diplomatic mission, have sex, create a baby, and his heir would be an American Citizen.

Same with Osama bin Laden; same with Zarqawi; same with Pyong; same with any Communist Chinese; same with Putin; Hitler; or anyone.

Then under the "policy" Uday, Osama, Zarwawi, Pyong, Putin, and Hitlere would become Naturalized U S Citizens to care for the United States citizen. In fact under the interpretation currently in play, neither parent would need to be a US Citizen to begin with.

Visitors here on a vacation can be popping out US Citizens, friendly or not, allegiant or not.

I'm certain that neither the Founding Fathers nor the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended this and IF they did, they made a mistake. As we know, they made a few which we've corrected.

This is one that needs correction immediately, because it's stupid and threatens our security and sovereignty.

It seems to me that this would be an EASY one for them to start with. I just think that MOST people would agree that someone born in the US to an illegal should NOT be a citizen. I hope they get on the ball on this issue NOW.