One In Twelve
One in 12 babies born in the USA in 2008 were born to illegal immigrants, according to a new study. Miriam Jordan writes in the WSJ:
Amid a heated national debate over illegal immigration, some Republican politicians have been calling for changes to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in order to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to unlawful residents.Late last month, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for reconsidering automatic U.S. citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants. He said the status quo enticed people to enter the country illegally and have children to qualify for U.S. benefits.
Under U.S. law, children have to wait until they reach the age of 21 before they can petition for permanent legal residency for their parents.
...Proponents of amending the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, say it was intended to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War, not the offspring of illegal immigrants. Their proposals are expected to appeal to conservative Republican voters as immigration emerges as a central issue in November's elections.
GOP opponents of repealing birthright citizenship say it undermines the party's electoral prospects among Hispanics, the nation's largest minority and fastest-growing group. Generally, Democrats are strongly opposed to repeal.
Do we continue to reward lawbreaking with a seriously big prize -- American citizenship? This seems like idiocy to me, especially considering the hoops people who have to immigrate legally must go through.
Oh, and on the Democratic note, "Harry Reid doesn't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be Republican."
wasn't this already decieded? From the Amendment: '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.'
from the SCOTUS in the slaughter decisions http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=83&invol=36
That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
~~~~~~~
So it seems the Supreme Court has already decided that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants on US soil.
The Former Banker at August 12, 2010 12:20 AM
I would not repeal it. I would change it a little! Any child born whose parents are NOT of American Citizens or Legal Residents in the United States will be granted Citizenship when he reaches voting age of the state he was born in. There!
True it might create limbo citizens.
John Paulson at August 12, 2010 2:57 AM
The main problem is that the citizenship of the "anchor baby" gives their extended family favored immigration/naturalization status.
That is not Consititutional, just immigration regulations, and easy to change. Drop any immigration rights for anyone but the US national's own nuclear family.
That will mean "anchor baby" can fast-track immigration of their spouse and children 21 years from now. But "anchor baby" offers no immigration advantage to mama or other adults - now, then, or ever.
This will stop the "anchor baby" phenom without the Sisyphean effort of a constitutional amendment.
... and how about securing those borders, eh?
Ben David at August 12, 2010 3:32 AM
"But "anchor baby" offers no immigration advantage to mama or other adults - now, then, or ever."
You think? Have they ever deported a mom with a legal citizen child? I cant find evidence of it anywhere with my googling. Not to mention that legal baby with poor illegal parents gets food stamps, housing aid, etc that benefits the illegals too.
momof4 at August 12, 2010 5:56 AM
I know that Ann Coulter can be over the top and rude, but that doesn't always make her wrong. She addressed this very topic in her weekly column last week. She said our current understanding of the 14th Admendment comes from a footnote inserted into a SC ruling by Brennan in 1982. It is interesting. Here is the link:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=380
sheepmommy at August 12, 2010 6:56 AM
If I steal your money, I should get to keep it because my kids would otherwise have to starve?
What ever happened to the idea that crime should not pay? Some judicial decisions are clearly wrong. I doubt there is another country anywhere that confers citizenship in this manner.
MarkD at August 12, 2010 7:57 AM
A legal act (granting citizenship) should not stem from an illegal act (entering this country illegally.)
If you really must let the kid have citizenship, give the parents a choice: leave the kid here and let a citizen adopt and raise it, or take it back with you and it can come back and claim its citizenship at 18.
Either way, YOU'RE leaving.
Ann at August 12, 2010 10:44 AM
momof4:
Have they ever deported a mom with a legal citizen child?
- - - - - - - - - -
1) Keep the kid, let an American family adopt.
2) Bye-bye baby, see you when you're 21 years old.
Ben David at August 12, 2010 12:50 PM
"...Proponents of amending the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, say it was intended to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War, not the offspring of illegal immigrants."
I was a pretty poor student in my government and social studies classes, but I do know there's a lot of stuff the founding fathers couldn't foresee. Are there any amendments that haven't been messed with or had their original intentions "stretched"?
Just curious. Oh, and lazy.
Pricklypear at August 12, 2010 3:54 PM
Are there any amendments that haven't been messed with or had their original intentions "stretched"?
About the only one that hasn't been stretched, but rather restricted is the Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But a recent SCOTUS ruling finally overturned that.
Jim P. at August 12, 2010 8:34 PM
"But "anchor baby" offers no immigration advantage to mama or other adults - now, then, or ever."
You think? Have they ever deported a mom with a legal citizen child? I cant find evidence of it anywhere with my googling. Not to mention that legal baby with poor illegal parents gets food stamps, housing aid, etc that benefits the illegals too.
Posted by: momof4
Glenn Sacks had a case just like that on his blog about a year ago. Some mezo american indian womand was deported shortly after hospital workers took her baby. Used the reasoning that as she couldnt speak english or spanish she was unable to undersatand the infant care instructions doctors were giving her and was therfore an unfit parent
lujlp at August 12, 2010 10:18 PM
Leave a comment