Anchor Babies


Antimedia writes about today’s op-ed piece in the Washington Times detailing how the right to citizenship should not be based solely on where you we’re born:

Some Republican lawmakers are considering ending birthright citizenship as we know it. The intriguing legal argument they tout is that the United States has been misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment for over 100 years. As a consequence, they argue, the United States awards citizenship to those whom the amendment’s framers never intended — and indeed, whom in some cases, common sense suggests we shouldn’t — like terrorists or agents of foreign powers. Then there is the question of illegal immigration. With a Rasmussen Poll indicating that half of Americans think children of illegals should not automatically receive citizenship, the idea could well grow legs.

The predominant interpretation of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment holds that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, except the children of diplomats. But six weeks ago, in testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee that Hill staffers have since been touting, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow of Claremont Institute, argued that the prevailing interpretation gives more weight to place of birth than originally intended and should be changed.

“Birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate,” he argues, calling birth and jurisdiction “a floor for citizenship.” And indeed the plain language of the clause contains items for both birth and jurisdiction: “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.”

[…]The illegal-immigration incentive that so-called “anchor babies” create weighs heavily on Republican lawmakers’ minds. Subordinating birthplace to jurisdiction could reduce that incentive.

There are legitimate objections, however, that we expect the proponents to address in the coming months. For one, can it be done without a constitutional amendment? Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, thinks it can, but it’s not clear that this is so. Should the United States follow what amounts to a European model of hereditary citizenship? The riots in France are instructive. And third, will this proposal break up families already in the United States?

The fundamental question is whether the benefits of U.S. citizenship should accrue to enemies of the United States, breakers of our immigration laws or those whose primary allegiance is to other powers. On all three counts, the answer seems to us to be no. In the most dangerous cases, like those of Mr. Hamdi and others who wish ill upon America, allegiance would be a better proxy than birth for people deserving of citizenship. But we await the debate, which should give us the details on which to decide.

This would be a start but when they end free healthcare, free schooling, & welfare to illegal immigrants then we will know they are serious about ending illegal immigration. I’m not holding my breath.

I do believe this would need to be an amendment tho, passing a law wont do squat. Although in 1873 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th amendment did not apply to aliens:

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

What is the defination of a alien?: An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country.

Sounds about right to me. A simple example would be if I robbed a bank and then used that money to buy a house. The house is not illegal but I brought it with the fruits of the crime, so it would stripped away from me. Why should a person here illegally be able to have a citizen child?

This would be a start but when they end free healthcare, free schooling, & welfare to illegal immigrants then we will know they are serious about ending illegal immigration. I’m not holding my breath.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments