Thread: IMMIGRATION DEBATE GNAWS AT THE MEANING OF CITIZENSHIP

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Immigration debate gnaws at meaning of citizenship

In California, and elsewhere in the United States, activists are debating not only immigration – but who should get to be a citizen.

By AMY TAXIN

The Orange County Register
Comments 43| Recommend 8

The 14th Amendment

The following section of the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. The amendment was ratified in 1868.

"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."

At street rallies, border control activists rail against "anchor babies" and U.S. laws that grant benefits to the children of undocumented immigrants. On the flip side of the debate, immigrant advocates decry the federal government's policy of deporting the parents of U.S.-born children who are left here to grow up in divided families.

The debate over immigration has reached a feverish pitch and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants increasingly find themselves thrust into the spotlight.

For centuries, the United States has granted citizenship to anyone born here, except the children of foreign diplomats. And for many, there is nothing to debate about birthright citizenship, a practice enshrined in the Constitution and one they feel is as American as apple pie.

But there is a growing push by anti-illegal immigration groups to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from acquiring birthright citizenship – a policy they believe is a magnet for illegal immigration. In Congress, 95 lawmakers this year backed a proposal to do just that.

And in California, two activists are working on a statewide initiative that could indirectly challenge birthright citizenship. The proposal, which needs nearly 434,000 signatures to make the November 2008 ballot, would distinguish between birth certificates issued to the children of U.S. citizens and green-card holders and to the children of temporary visitors and illegal immigrants.

"This is the beginning of the citizens' movement," said Ted Hilton, a San Diego real estate developer who co-authored the proposal. "It is certainly going to raise the issue."

The proposal would also prevent children of undocumented immigrants from getting state welfare.

Hilton and co-author Tony Dolz, a Cuban-born immigrant who is running for Congress in Santa Monica, say they haven't yet hired a political consultant. Virtually all initiatives that land on the California ballot are handled by professional petition management firms that pay people about $1.50 for each signature collected – a daunting task in a massive state.

Many immigrant advocates take proposals like this one with a grain of salt, surmising they're unlikely to get passed without major cash – and if they did, they'd be challenged in court anyway.

But the Center for New Community, a Midwest-based civil rights group, is taking it seriously. The nonprofit tracks "nativist movements" across the U.S. and worries the push to change birthright citizenship is gathering steam, fueled by anti-immigrant fervor on right-wing talk radio.

"Anything that strikes a blow at that is striking a blow at the very heart of our democratic process," said Devin Burghart, director of the CNC's Building Democracy Initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL DIVIDE

More than 3 million U.S.-born children have at least one parent who is undocumented, according to a 2006 study by the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center.

The constitutional debate over birthright citizenship dates back decades. At the heart of the discussion lies the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War to counteract a Supreme Court decision that had denied citizenship to the descendants of slaves.

Many scholars argue that changing the definition of citizenship would require a constitutional amendment – a cumbersome political process demanding hefty support in Congress and in the states. In recent years, some scholars have questioned this interpretation with regard to the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing the authors of the amendment did not have these young citizens in mind.

John C. Eastman, dean of Chapman University's law school, said the amendment wasn't meant to apply to children born in a particular place but to those born to parents who had ties to the U.S.

"Citizenship means 'I owe allegiance to,'" said Eastman, who has given testimony in Congress on the subject. "You can't owe allegiance to two different sovereigns. What if they're at war?"

Other scholars say this reading is incorrect.

James C. Ho, an appellate lawyer in Dallas said the 14th Amendment was written to include any person subject to the laws of the United States much in the way that Microsoft Corp. is subject to the rules of the Federal Trade Commission – whether or not it follows them.

Ho said he understands people are deeply frustrated by illegal immigration but U.S. citizenship rules can't be changed simply by law. "It is pretty clear the Constitution does not allow getting rid of birthright citizenship, no matter how genuine and sincere and heartfelt these policy arguments are," he said. "If you want to change the policy, you need a constitutional amendment."

Ho said he was surprised by the groundswell of interest in birthright citizenship on talk radio, cable television and Internet blogs. According to a 2005 poll by Rasmussen Reports, 49 percent of respondents believed the children of illegal immigrants should not receive U.S. citizenship.

Ray Lopez, producer of "The John and Ken Show" on KFI/640 AM, said listeners are driving the debate on the airwaves. "When it comes to this issue, everybody is pretty passionate," he said, adding that his show draws a million listeners at any given time throughout the afternoon. "In their mind, there's only one way and that is to completely change the way birthright citizenship is being done."

STATES AND CITIZENS

Since the federal government failed to pass an immigration overhaul, states have been increasingly taking immigration policy into their own hands. Just this year, state lawmakers proposed more than 1,400 bills on issues ranging from driver's licenses to work eligibility.

While states cannot determine who gets to be a U.S. citizen, a Texas lawmaker tried to propose a law this year to cut benefits for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. The bill was abandoned in the state Legislature, which doesn't meet for another year.

The debate may be coming to California. Hilton and Dolz say they don't aim to change birthright citizenship, per se, but to stir debate. Under the "California Real ID Act of 2008," at least one parent would need to show proof of U.S. citizenship or a green card to qualify for a "type 1" birth certificate – the document that would be required for a child to receive state welfare benefits.

Hilton and Dolz expect their proposal, if passed, would be challenged in court. But that's precisely why they want to get it on the ballot. They hope any such challenge would eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which could respond by issuing a ruling on the definition of citizenship.

The pair is counting on conservative talk radio to get out the word and a groundswell of interest in immigration enforcement around the country to start raising money. They hope to get enough donations – at least $500,000 – to hire petition gatherers and consultants to make the November 2008 ballot – which they also believe will help insert the issue in the presidential debate.

Several undocumented immigrants questioned whether such a proposal, if passed, would deter anyone from crossing the border, noting they came here seeking work, not citizenship.

"People are still going to come," said Rosa, 35, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who has lived here a decade. "I didn't come here to have children – but they were born here."

The initiative is currently pending review by California's attorney general. Signature gathering cannot take place until the review is completed.

A presidential election year may be a tough time to float such an initiative because many interest groups are fighting for the spotlight and limited cash. "Especially in a presidential election year, where money becomes a premium for the candidates, there's less money for the initiatives," said Michael Arno, who owns a petition management firm.

Dolz, who lost a state Assembly bid last year, is betting Republicans will rally around the initiative, noting the attention presidential candidates are already paying to immigration on the campaign trail. "I believe the Republican Party as a whole is going to embrace this issue because it will help turn out the vote – and I don't know any other issue right now that will do it," Dolz said.

The state Republican Party, which will discuss initiatives at its February convention, has not formally reviewed the proposal. But members will likely question its viability since birth certificates need to be acceptable in other states. "What you're basically saying is you're trying to create two classes of citizens," said Hector Barajas, a spokesman for the California Republican Party.

That worries Aide, 35, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who lives in Orange. She can't imagine how she would have told her four U.S.-born children that the country they loved and the flag to which they pledged allegiance in school was not their own. "This is their country," she said.

Louis DeSipio, a UC Irvine political science professor, said he doubts California Republicans want to touch an issue that could potentially mobilize a powerful backlash from the Latino electorate.

"I don't think debate will go there because in most states, particularly in California, political elites really don't want to mobilize that single-issue anti-Minuteman core of the party because the cost they pay for it is so high," DeSipio said. "It mobilizes people who vote against the party on other things. The Republican Party doesn't want things like this on the ballot."


Contact the writer: 714-796-7999 or ataxin@ocregister.com or http://immigration.freedomblogging.com

http://www.ocregister.com/news/citizens ... ates-state

-----------------------------------------------------------

The 14th Amendment

The following section of the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. The amendment was ratified in 1868.

"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."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

California Real ID

The proposed initiative – dubbed by its authors as the "California Real ID Act of 2008" – was submitted to the state Attorney General's Office Nov. 2.

The state will spend 60 days examining the initiative and its fiscal effects before proponents are allowed to try to gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November 2008.

Some facets of the initiative:

•It would create two kinds of California-issued birth certificates starting in 2009.

•A "type 1" birth certificate would be issued to children born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or green-card holder.

•A "type 2" birth certificate would be issued to children born to parents who are here on temporary visas or who are undocumented immigrants. Birth mothers who wish to obtain this certificate for their children would be fingerprinted to parents who are here on temporary visas or who are undocumented immigrants. Birth mothers who wish to obtain this certificate for their children would be fingerprinted.

•CalWORKs, a public assistance program, would only be made available to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

•Residents who fail to prove U.S. citizenship or permanent residency would be ineligible for state or federal reimbursement for most non-emergency care.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Around the world

Here are the rules for becoming a citizen in some other countries:

Canada: Children born in Canada are automatically Canadian citizens unless their parents are diplomats. Children born abroad to at least one Canadian parent may also qualify for citizenship.

Mexico: Children born in Mexico are automatically Mexican citizens. Children born abroad to at least one Mexican parent are also automatically eligible for Mexican citizenship.

Great Britain: Children born in Great Britain to at least one parent who is a citizen are automatically citizens. If neither parent is a British citizen, children are eligible for citizenship if they live in the country for their first 10 years or for five years before they turn 22 if they have always been stateless. If a parent naturalizes before a child turns 18, the child may become a citizen.

Australia: Children born to at least one parent who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident after August 1986 are automatically citizens. A child born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents automatically acquires citizenship at age 10, providing he or she lives there. Children born to diplomats in Australia do not qualify for Australian citizenship.

Singapore: Children born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore are not eligible for citizenship. Unmarried children under age 21 who have a parent who is a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore may apply for permanent residence.

Sources: Government Web sites and immigration offices.

I've thought a great deal about this issue and if the mother is not a US citizen, then the child should not be eligible for automatic birthright citizenship.

Others may apply based upon the law and circumstances but the only child that should be a US Citizen automatically are the children of mothers who are US Citizens at the time of the birth.

I've also thought a great deal with what we do with children born here to illegal mothers. When the mother is deported, the child irrespective of citizenship status, is deported with the mother. They can return when they are adults if US citizens depending upon the laws and US Constitution at the time of their requested return.