No doubt in part to the poor economy, birthright citizenship has become a target for lawmakers.
Lawmakers in at least 14 states have said they are committed to passing the legislation targeting birthright citizenship. Arizona’s anti-illegal-immigrant bill, SB-1070, was also based on model legislation that could be easily copied by states, and at least seven states are likely to pass bills similar to the first Arizona immigration overhaul this year, according to one analysis by an immigrants rights group.
It is argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to cover freed slaves. In the 19th century the Supreme Court found that the Amendment also covered the children immigrants but SCOTUS has not dealt with the children of those who have violated the law in breaking into this country illegally.
It is estimated that as many as 8% of the births in the US are to illegal alien parents.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, approximately 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the children of illegal aliens, many of whom emanate from Mexico. The study which was released yesterday comes as more and more Americans are showing concern over illegal aliens entering the U.S. and garnering a treasure-trove of benefits such as free education, health care, and other social programs. Some conservative lawmakers wish to amend the 14th Amendment from which the court have derived the concept of “anchor babies.”
And some of those births are costly:
It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She’s rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section – a $4,700 medical procedure that won’t cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.
The Rand Corporation estimated that health care for illegals cost $1.1 billion in 2008.
In 2004 the overall net cost (i.e. loss) of illegals to this country’s economy was estimated to be over $10 billion.
“Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household,” said Steven A. Camarota, author of the study.
And that was expected to triple if amnesty was granted.
Just who offers birthright citizenship today?
In the “developed countries” birthright citizenship is offered by only the United States and Canada. In the “other” column (presumably undeveloped or underdeveloped) many countries are listed as offering birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment does not speak to children of illegal aliens. Birthright citizenship was last considered by the Supreme Court before there were such things as Social Security and welfare. Do away with them and the argument becomes moot. Otherwise, financial considerations cannot be ignored. It’s costly to bear this burden and this country cannot afford frivolities any longer.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
A good idea that is LONG PAST due. It needs to go.
We could also consider fully revoking birthright citizenship to “under achievers” if we could find a country to take them. Say two years on welfare then you hit the “expire by” date. ICE drops by, puts you on a plane to Haiti or the Congo or Myramar and we pay their government 10k for resettlement expenses. That’d motivate a few folks I imagine.
They dont even have to repeal the 14th amendment, simply amend it to read that the parents of the child born MUST be US Citizens. That will end all entitlements this is costing the US.
The next step is to cut off the Free medical and social funds used to treat these people in OUR hospitals. If you can’t pay your bill or show you are a citizen then ICE is immediately called and you are charged with a felony for fraud ad finger printed for the data base. With this on your record it makes entering the US legally impossible since the person now has a record and is ineligible.
So under your rule, a female US soldier who gives birth to a child in an army hospital in California, with her British army soldier husband standing by, . . . that child is not a citizen of the United States. That is the rule you want.
Likewise, my wife’s dad was career Air Force, and served in Vietnam. But because his wife is a Brit, neither of his daughters would be citizens under your rule.
In contrast, some West Virginia inbreeds who have never done anything useful for society, their kids are citizens under your rule. Likewise, the child born of the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez (serving time on California’s death row) and a groupie . . . that kid is a citizen, too. But the child of a Chinese physics professor and the Korean chemistry grad student he met, fell in love with and married, the child born here in Ohio who will never learn a lick of Korean or Chinese and who will grow up hating the Pittsburgh Steelers . . . that child is NOT a citizen under your rule.
Your proposed rule makes no sense at all, since it would have the bizarre effect of penalizing high achieving immigrants while rewarding our native sloths.
B-Rob, I don’t really like being called a native sloth.
Also, I think that your argument there doesn’t make sense. The American married to a Brit, born in a US hospital would be a citizen, maybe not a natural born citizen, but a citizen. Where did you read differently?
Rob in Katy —
The post I replied to said “They dont even have to repeal the 14th amendment, simply amend it to read that the parents of the child born MUST be US Citizens. ” Under that idiotic rule, the child of a female US Army soldier, born in a US military hospital, would not be a citizen because his dad is a Brit. Neither my wife nor her sister (who was born in Britain at a US military hospital) would be citizens, EVEN THOUGH their dad was risking is life in Nam fighting for his native born country.
Lastly, I could not let your “birther” implication slide by, i.e., that both parents must be citizens to pass on US citizenship. That is not and never has been the law in the United States, nor does it make any sense when you read the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 14 Amendment.
1) I am not a birther, I think that he abdicated his citizenship when he traveled abroad on a foreigner passport.
2) I think that soldiers serving abroad has been addressed with McCain, did you miss that where Obama asked that he prove his citizenship? I think that has and always will be an established exception that they would be citizens, but not “natural born citizens.”
3) if you read my other post, I amended that to the mother must be a US Citizen. Again, the point being that no one should profit from illegal deeds. Should you be able to keep the money that your father stole from a bank because you didn’t know that it was stolen, I would hazard that even you may find that dubious. The same with the most precious thing that American’s own, citizenship should not be stolen.
Dr. John, you obviously have no appreciation for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as written. If cons want to end birthright citizenship, then put together an amendment, get it through Congress, and get it adopted by the states. But you are denigrating the Constitution in large part because you don’t understand it.
You wrote that the 14th Amendment “does not speak to children of illegal aliens.” It does not specifically address “illegal aliens” for the same reason the Constitution does not address abortion, surrogate parenting, the internet, DNA, or machine guns — these are legal and factual concepts that simply did not exist in the 1860s. It was not illegal back then to traipse across the border from Mexico into Arizona without a visa, because visas did not exist, nor was there a law governing immigration. So you cannot bootstrap the absence of mention in the Constitution to conclude that illegals and their children were “not intended” to be covered.
You also wrote that the 14th Amendment was “intended to cover freed slaves”. Do you really believe that? Because that would mean that the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause were never intended to apply to Black freedmen or any White person in the US. But as my old law professor The Hammer would say, “Well that can’t be right, can it?” No, it can’t.
If the clause was only intended to cover freed slaves, then it would have said so. In addition, if it was only intended to cover freed slaves, SOME sitting Supreme Court would have recognized that “fact” long ago. Instead, the Supremes have, over the years, not only extended the coverage of Due Process and Equal Protection to White people and Black freedmen, but also to non-citizens, illegals, convicts, children, and corporations, to name a few. If you want to start revisiting the reach of the 14th Amendment, I would kindly suggest that non-human beings (like corporations, partnerships, non-profit organizations, churches, etc.) be the first to have those rights stripped. After all, they are FAR more removed from the pitiable former slaves than illegal aliens are. Indeed, if there is any group that is similarly marginalized in society to former slaves, it would be illegals; so there was no logical stretch to apply that Amendment to illegals as there was such a stretch to apply it to multi-national corporations.
You also said “Birthright citizenship was last considered by the Supreme Court before there were such things as Social Security and welfare.” OK. But let me suggest a few problems, both line-drawing and moral, with refusing to extend birthright citizenship to anyone born here. A couple hypotheticals:
1) A couple comes into the hospital with no papers and claim they are both legal. Does the child qualify as a citizen under your “new rule”? Does it matter if these people with no papers but claiming citizenship are White, African born, or Hispanic? How much time do you give them to “prove” their citizenship so that the baby is a citizen?
2) A woman gives birth in a hospital. She claims she is legal but says the father is not. Baby citizen?
3) A woman in the next bed says she is illegal, but the father is a citizen. Baby citizen?
4) Does it matter in scenario 2 or 3 that both the mom and the dad are soldiers in the US Army stationed in Iraq? If the baby is not a US citizen, then what country is it a citizen of?
5) What if the father’s country in scenario 2 does not recognize the baby as a citizen? If the child is not a US citizen, then how would you deal with a “stateless” child?
These questions all arise when you eliminate birthright citizenship. As such, it is simply a dumb idea to separate citizenship from birthright. Not to mention the oddity that a soldier in the US Army, born in the US to illegal parents, is in your eyes not “worthy” of the citizenship that permitted him or her to enlist in the army to protect this country. And that is another irony: his or her parents raised them in such a way that they volunteered to risk their life defending this country, yet cons think they are not worthy of citizenship because those same parents were illegals.
You also need to explain to me why two hard working but illegal people’s baby should not get birthright citizenship, but the children of some third generation West Virginia hillbilly welfare recipients get to retain their birthright citizenship. The first couple pays taxes and contributes to society through their labor, while the second couple are veritable leeches; but your new rule would give more rights to the children of the “first of the month” food stamp users than to the couple whose taxes pay for those same food stamps. How does that make any sense on a moral level?
Like I said, if cons thought through this proposal on a moral or even a functional level, it would be quickly abandoned. It is incredibly stupid, and to alleviate some of the stupidity, you would have to create so many loopholes and caveats as to basically mimic the same birthright citizenship you just deleted from the Constitution. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has worked fine for 150 years. Leave it alone!
Personally, I think if the mother is a US Citizen, the kid should be. That is much easier to track / prove than the father. If Both oare US Citizens then the kid is a natural born citizen otherwise naturalized.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_the_14th_amendment#ixzz1A5kO2GBa
Yes, I do.
drj, I don’t know who Original Intent dot org is. I’ve only been able to find two associated names… Patrick Linstruth and Dave Champion of nontaxpayer dot org. The latter is a S. Nevada paralegal, and former Airborne Ranger who seems to make his living “counseling” citizens INRE tax advice, without being a CPA or tax attorney. The only things I could track down on Linstruth on short notice is that there is one with the same name in Palmdale, CA, a member of the Republican Party of Palmdale organization, and may be affiliated with QNet, a Lancaster, CA ISP.
So I’m going to take issue with what I consider their less than informed opinions on “original intent”, in that it specifically means “white males”. If the Founding Fathers had intended race to be a part of the Constitution in any form, they would have said so. That the citizens of that era were caucasian, and the majority from England, may be true. However if they had in mind that the nation would be forever limited to a particular color of skin, that would have been stated in the Constitution.
I think these guys are simply attempting to stretch the truth beyond credibility, and connect the dots in a very unbelievable sort of way. The beauty of the Constitution is that they did not place such limits on freedom for anyone based on race or gender… then, or with their visions of the future.
B-Rob may want to read the congressional proceedings regarding the 14th Amendment before he types anymore.
How can this be done? You’ll never pass a Constitutional Amendment. It cannot be done by Congress and if you try you’re as bad as the progressives for ignoring the Constitution.
Hang the 14th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this problem. It is an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, problem. There are two requirements to be President, age (35) and being born in the US. Period.
Don’t try to tell me that a non-citizen can be President. If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Period. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
All those illegal aliens’ children, born here, age 35, or older, are as qualified to be President as you are. The trick is to make sure no alien has children in the US.
I really don’t think that it needs amending, just a rulling that there is an implied “legal” requirement on the parents…
… Amendment also covered the children *of legal* immigrants but….
And a ruling that social services, medical attention, aid, … are for *legal* residents and visitors.
Edited: Mother must be a legal US Citizen, it works for the Jews to track linage.
B-Rob says:
“In contrast, some West Virginia inbreeds who have never done anything useful for society”
What a hateful little piece of crap you are.
Yup, sure was Wm T. But then, we’ve come to expect that kind of BS from Billy Bob. Unsurprising.
I’m confused about the thrust of your post’s point, drj. Is it the citizenship status that concerns you? Or are you more concerned about the birth costs? Addressing one doesn’t mitigate the other. These are two completely different issues, and denying citizenship will not necessarily lead to the savings.
Whether or not the child enables the parents to stay in the country… which it would not under AZ’s immigration law… doesn’t preclude the possibility that a pregnant mother may cross the border just for the superior medical care.
Or are you also suggesting that hospitals withhold care, and turn away the undocumented?
That’s just not the way this country works… nor does it align with our principles. Were we following the letter of our federal laws, and heeding our national moral compass, we would care for the undocumented, and then deport them.
Citizenship aside, if your beef is the costs, then you may want to place the blame where it squarely belongs…. on the increase of expensive and unnecessary prenatal care and birth procedures. In 2008, it was estimated that $2.5 billion was spent on unnecessary C-section births.
That figure becomes more interesting with the Rand findings you cite in your post. First of all, if many of you are not aware of it, the linked article about the subject mother in question is also dated in 2008. That makes the $1.1 billion of healthcare costs for all of the undocumented, cited by Rand, on what you may deem as unworthy humans less than half of all the wasted funds doing unnecessary C-section procedures for any mother (documented or not) in the same period of time. Just some fiscal perspective to consider.
That number of unnecessary C-sections has increased since 2008. Over 1/3 of all births are now done routinely with a procedure that was originally reserved for specific medical complications. It is yet another problem within our health care spending problems, and totally unrelated to whether it is given to an undocumented alien, or US citizen. Because we are not a heartless nation, turning out mothers in labor, that money will be spent anyway because of questionable medical practices.
Also, I find myself in the same camp as Billy Bob here where it comes to the 14th Amendment. Due process is not an amendment that was created, nor intended, to benefit a small select group. Our rights extend to to all those on US soil and it is with that end that amendments are proposed and considered. An illegal undocumented citizen has as much right to due process as the terrorist arrested on (or brought to) US soil. Not sure where you came up with your rather pecular interpretation.
I also agree that it’s a dangerous precedent to separate birthright citizenship, based on the parental status. You are trying to address a narrow group of people you want to punish, but ignore that the same rule you propose punishes others who may not be citizens but are present in this county legally.
Not meaning to divert and to stray OT, but didn’t John Edwards have a hand in this:
Mata–
I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with a word you’ve written, but sneaking across the border to have an anchor baby paid for by someone else is not one of “our principles”. Also, as I’m sure you’ll recall when you think about it, the increase in C-sections is entirely due to our friend John Edwards and his band of trial lawyers.
And speaking of trial lawyers, Congress needs to amend EMTALA such that only real emergencies must be treated at emergency rooms “regardless of ability to pay”. Over the last 25 years, the trial lawyers have seen to it that the word “emergency” now includes such life-threatening conditions such as runny noses and ingrown toenails. Hospitals are going out of business because of anchor babies and EMTALA. We need to fix both of these laws out of self-preservation.
LOL… John Cooper, I did not say that anchor babies is one of our “principles”. What I said was our national moral principles do not generally include refusing medical care for those in need, despite their citizenship status.
As I said, I don’t know what this post is about. If it’s about whether babes born on US soil are granted citizenship, then count me in. Children are not responsible for the actions of their parents,and the repercussions of just who the parents are allowed to be ensnare too many innocents in the legal net.
On the other hand, if you consider AZ’s law, which would deport the entire family (not tearing them apart) because a baby cannot sponsor it’s parents until legal age, then the citizenship of the child isn’t a problem. They can return when they become young adults and can make it on their own, and legally sponsor their parents when they are of age. Isn’t that a path to legality? And it’s not instantaneous, but takes 16-21 years. So what’s the beef?
Tying the birthright issue to medical costs is absurd. As I said, whether or not the child is granted citizenship or not, the mothers in labor may still make their way here simply for superior medical care. Exactly what is anyone proposing? Toss them back across the river without aiding in the birth? If they are caught prior to labor, they should be deported. And therein lies our immigration problem. They simply don’t catch them, and when they do they don’t deport them all.
Have no arguments with Edwards involvment in the increase of C-sections. I am well aware that most medical is made more expensive because of trial lawyers, forcing the medical professionals to practice anti-litigation procedures. I didn’t blame the individual doctors or hospitals specifically. I stated it was a problem within our health care spending that, of course, O’healthcare doesn’t address. So I’m missing your point, I guess.
Word is right.
“Unnecessary C-sections” is the term used by personal injury attorneys who collect a fortune each time a child is born with some defect completely unrelated to the birth process.
“Someone must pay” is the mantra. As Word notes, John Edwards did play a role in this.
I will argue with you forever about this one. You have no idea what it’s like in the medical profession today. Fracking attorneys troll the broadcast media, especially cable, all day and night for the least little thing.
“DID SOMEONE HUR YOUR FEELINGS TODAY? IF SO, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY SETTLEMENT! CALL DEWEY CHEATEM AND HOWE TODAY FOR YOUR FREE CONSULTATION!”
We are not denying the child citizenship, it is a citizen of its home country, most usually Mexico! We should give them a certificate of live birth that they can then take to the Mexican consulate and get a real Mexican Birth Cert.
Children should not be held accountable for the sins of their parents, they should also not be rewarded for it…nor should the parents be rewarded for sneaking a fetus in and having it here.
Exactly what did Wordsmith say that has you believing it counters what I said, drj?
I said:
Wordsmith pointed out that Edwards, yet another trial attorney, played a hand in the increase of C-sections, which is “..yet another problem within our health care spending problems”.
These conflict… how?
Mata
When my kids were growing up we had rules. My wife and I did not reward bad or wrong behavior. That only leads to more bad behavior. Maybe it was different in your house. :-p
Mata–
I’m sorry to have to disagree with you yet again when you say, “Tying the birthright issue to medical costs is absurd.” It’s my belief that the primary reason the illegals come to America is because they get “free” medical care here. My wife works at a hospital and I can tell you all this “free” care they are forced to dole out to illegals is bankrupting the hospital. They were two million in the hole last year, and just got bought out by another hospital.
Illegal immigration is the primary reason hospitals are going out of business. Here’s just one of thousands of similar articles: $35 million in emergency healthcare spent on illegal aliens in Massachusetts alone
Illegal immigration in general and anchor babies in particular are simply going to bankrupt American hospitals (schools, state budgets, federal budgets, and on and on). If the illegal alien problem is to be solved, America needs a comprehensive approach: 1. Seal the border, 2. Amend the 14th Amendment, 3. revise EMTALA, 4. Cut off all forms of welfare for non-citizens.
Dr John,
You are correct it has almost shutdown several hospitals in Tx:
AUSTIN — The state of Texas and local hospital districts spent an estimated $677 million to provide health care to illegal immigrants in a year, a new study says.
Harris County’s cost
The Harris County Hospital District provided $203.5 million in uncompensated care to illegal immigrants in 2006, the report said.
Those are no small numbers, they cannot be made up in rounding errors. Legal citizens are shorted by spending billions each year on care for illegals. Do I want illegals to suffer, of course not, but when does the burden become unreasonable for the citizens to support without any say in the matter, 10 million, 20 million, 50 million, 100 million , 300 million? Do the bleeding hearts see no limit to how much of someone elses money they can spend?
Has 2011 ushered in a new era of reading disability here?
Leaving aside your smug and snide personal comments about my family which, were you in my presence, would leave you with a sharp red mark across your cheek, you are wrong wrong wrong and embarrassingly ignorant.
As Seattle immigration attorney, Bonnie Stern Wasser, pointed out in her Sept 2010 article about anchor babies, there is no federal law that supports your erroneous belief.
So no, the nation does not “inherit” the entire family. And were that true, the AZ immigration law that states the entire family can be deported if found here illegally… including their anchor baby, since they will not separate families… would render that section of their law void and in conflict with federal law.
The only way we “inherit” the family is if the INS does not deport, according to our laws. Were they deported, following the birth, the only “reward” they have is the medical care… which is given to all despite citizen status, and not limited to pregnancies.
That is entirely different that what you misportray here. I’m happy to rail against the lack of law enforcement right along with you. But I’m not willing to make up mistruths about immigration law in order to support whatever problems you have with medical care costs.
Secondly, I have no clue why any of you want to read a sentence, then come up with something totally unrelated. Case in point, I did not say that illegal immigrants do not cost this nation money.
What I said was that citizenship for babies, or not, will not stop someone from crossing the border to receive medical care. That is evidenced by the $1.1 billion cited by Rand for all care for illegals. Think they were all pregnant, and dragging along anchor babies?
The only thing that will stop border crossings for health care is if you make all medical care subject to proof of legal presence in this country.
Again, that is an entirely different subject.
What I said INRE denying medical care, based on citizenship, is that it is fundamentally against our nation’s principles to simply cast out one who is in need of care. Are we broke? Yes. But get some perspective. Using the Rand citation of $1.1 billion for illegals, is denying them that health care going to cure the fiscal spiral down the toilet? No. It’s a drop in the bucket. As I pointed out, the amount of unnecessary C-sections on *all* pregnant women is more than double the amount estimated by Rand for illegals medical care of any kind.
What I would support is more active enforcement of our laws. If they are ill, we take care of them, and then deport them. I would not support denying medical care to only those who can prove their presence here legally.
What I would support is genuine reform of health care costs… i.e. the amount of money it costs to administer health care. At least, when we’re not being heartless and callous by tossing out sick people simply to avoid the costs, we’re paying reasonable amounts.
And one more thing. I have no idea why any of you would believe that I gave trial attorneys a pass just because I made a simple statement that the amount of C-sections done unnecessarily are part of our health care spending problems. Especially since I have advocated for malpractice reform on this site countless times. Just what part of “health care spending problems” says that? That phrase is a big category… and certainly includes malpractice problems, along with price of equipment, supplies, drugs, taxes, medical providers basic overhead, etc.
So yes, drj. I have a problem with your post because I can’t figure out what the heck you are proposing specifically. But I will repeat this…because a baby doesn’t become a citizen will not stop a desperate mother from seeking health care here. So removing the birthright isn’t going to save a nickel. Just like the Rand cited $1.1 billion for illegals care isn’t confined to those with anchor babies. They are simply unrelated. Remove citizenship status, and it doesn’t affect the spending. Period.
BTW, drj, my family taught me to read, ask questions and make informed opinions before opening my yapper. Evidently you have a lot more reading to do on immigration law. In the meantime, I’ll put your opines where they belong… in the hype category.
Mata
Firstly, this
:-p
Is sarcasm.
Second, when do we deport US citizen children with their families???
Chain migration? Serial migration? Family reunification? All the soppy liberal stuff.
Once a child is born here, the parents are highly unlikely to be deported. They become a financial burden one way or the other. If birthright citizenship is not granted to illegals, deportation becomes much easier.
Then again, they should not be allowed to barge in in the first place.
If someone feels that these people are deserving of their financial support, then they ought to band together and provide it instead of making us all pay.
I look forward to that slap. 😉
As I said, drj, if you want to rail against the lack of enforcement for immigration laws, you will find me on your side. However the presence of an anchor baby does not allow for a family to obtain citizenship via sponsorship until that baby is 21 years of age. Therefore you cannot hold the illegals responsible for law enforcement and INS not doing their job.
Anchor babies or not, the illegals are a drain on the system. Therefore, again, citizenship status has nothing to do with the medical costs. They come here… pregnant or not.
And no, it’s not any harder to deport a family with an anchor baby.
300,000 babies born to illegals every year. I’d love to know how many of those parents are really deported.
drj, you ask “when do we deport” families of anchor babies? Why not ask Jenny Aguilar who’s facing deportation with her 2 year old. Nope… she didn’t cross the river pregnant. She’s lived in the country for 18 years.
I don’t have stats of how many anchor babies and familes have been deported since they don’t all make the news, and I’m not sure if the statistics are actually kept. But it is certainly legal to do so, and is and has been done.
Then, there’s the perspective of just how many anchor babies here. According to an analysis of the Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center in August 2010, 8% of all all newborns here in this nation as of 2008 were to undocumented parents.
That sounds like a lot of anchor babies and their families, yes? The kids are, per our law, US citizens. That means our “anchor kid” and future US adult citizens make up a total of .0165% of our population which was about 308 million with the latest census.
Assuming both parents are still here, that’s 10.2 million undocumented with anchor babies, or .033% of the total population.
Those families, if still residing here at this writing, are working, likely paying taxes for both local state and federal, certainly paying sales taxes and contributing to this nation. They did not simply abscond with the free health care, and go home.
Now, can you come up with any conclusions as to how many of them are deadbeats and a drain on the system? Of course not.
Like I said, I don’t care about the citizenship bit. Whatever they do to amend the Constitution to define citizenship is not big on my radar. But whether they are citizens, or not, they will still migrate here and cost the health system. They are unrelated issues.
Read Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution..
Hence, had Sir Winston Churchill hurried his birth by three days he could have been both Prime Minister of Great Britain AND President of the United States (he was born on a ship en route from from New York, USA to England). It didn’t matter that his mother was American. And Great Britain doesn’t have a birth policy for Prime Ministers.
The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegals. It says so right in the Amendment: “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Americans seem to have forgotten what these words mean. Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI), who introduced the bill which became the 14th Amendment, explains the intent. From the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866:
See also: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
Seems pretty clear to me. Nice find, John
The Saudis have an interesting system.
Only a baby born of two free Saudi citizens is also a citizen.
Any baby born from a slave woman, even if the father is known to be a Saudi, even a member of Saudi royalty, is never a citizen.
If and when the father/owner of the slave woman tires of her and sends her home to her own country, all her children by him (or by any other Saudi male) go with her.
The father has no obligation to pay anything for any of them at any time.
Any visitors/tourists in Saudi Arabia who have a baby there have to deal with the fact that their baby can never be a Saudi citizen.
And, speaking of ”inbred,” the Saudi government will not cover the costs of any Saudi baby (citizen) IF the parents are 1st cousins (47% of all Saudi’s marry at least one 1st cousin) AND a genetic test warned the parents of any bad potential genetic outcomes to having children.
Genetic tests are required to get a marriage license for 1st cousins in Saudi Arabia.
Such parents are 100% responsible for the costs of any recessive genetic weirdness their babies have.
It seems to me that the 14th should simply be tweaked to indicate that only offspring born of those in the US legally would be extended birthright citizenship.
In other words, if you’ve traveled to the US legally, whether for purposes of work or education or whatever…coming here, and remaining here through legal means…then your offspring would be extended citizenship.
If, on the other hand, you sneaked in through the basement window under cover of darkness, or, if you’ve overstayed a previously valid visa then your children would not be entitled to citizenship.
I have no problem with immigrants and immigration, as long as they are legal. Immigrants are, after all, one of the major elements that made this country what it is.
The illegal category, however, is currently eating us alive.
Again, I agree.
Aye–
I sure agree with that. Americans are not heartless, but we darn sure are broke. Here’s the article by Ann Coulter I was trying to find: Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies
Once you grant citizenship to an anchor baby, you inherit the entire family and they all stay. It’s a reward to for breaking the rules.
It’s wrong.
Wrong wrong and wrong. Legally incorrect in all ways. See my comment above.
all the constitution talk is nice but ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL SQUAT AND DROP HAS GOT TO STOP
I’m not usually considered a “dense” person, but why not simply restrict U.S. citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens? If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a citizen of another country, then allow a status of dual citizenship. We can still define “natural born citizen” as a child born to U.S. citizens. We should not deny emergency care to anyone, but why should we reward people who come to this country illegally for any reason? If our immigration process needs to be revamped, let’s do that. If our border security is lacking, let’s fix that as well. I don’t see how equating a child’s citizenship to that of its parents is in any way punishing the child, whereas extending free social services to illegal aliens does punish the families of legal citizens by requiring them to pay (through taxation) for the services consumed by illegals. Why is it that we hear so much about “punishing the innocent children of illegal immigrants” yet we never hear about the punishing costs that legal citizens have to bear?
Jeff
OK, let me clarify. Birthright citizenship to children of those here illegally has got to end.
Why do we only leave our Southern Border open to invasion by pregnant or horny Mexican women, there are many Canadian women with the same interests and abilities; yet, I will guarantee you that if you stick a toe over that much longer northern border you will have a chopper breathing down your back in a few minutes. Why stop with just Mexican women, the borders should be thrown wide open for pregnant and horny women from every country; that way, Obama and Soros can implement their Open Society even sooner than just the invasion of Southern Anchor Babies. Let’s not kid ourselves, this whole strategy is only designed to weaken and dilute the American culture and economy to advance world Socialism.
What makes an American an American? Its not a sheet of paper, its pride in our country and a willingness to defend this country. Diluting our public with illegal aliens who are here to milk the system doesn’t make America stronger: it only serves to weaken our country and cause patriots to become disheartened and to lose faith in our country. It is all part of a multi-pronged strategy, designed to bring us to our knees.
Not that the Hispanic can’t be patriotic, my family has a segment that crossed the border a hundred years ago and has had many Marines and Naval men among them through generations and I served with many Hispanics who were the best of the best, but it takes time to become an American. Crossing the border and asking for food stamps and plugging up emergency rooms with snotty nosed kids is not part of the American spirit.
Yes, when we grant citizenship to kids who hit the ground here, not only is the immediate family eligible for citizenship, but all the extended family in Mexico is as well. Each baby that survives has the potential to multiply his presence by twenty to sixty people before he is old enough to reproduce.
Anecdotal history: My foreman, back before I was so broke I couldn’t maintain an agricultural crew, came to me for mentoring. He often asked questions about the law, his wife, his wrecked cars and trucks, and many other problems that plague a man who served time for smuggling drugs. He told me his teenage daughter was talking to an Air Force recruiter and he wasn’t sure it was a good thing, he was afraid she men would take advantage of her. He thought she should graduate from high school and have a baby so the government would start sending her a check. He looked upon that as a job and security. I told him that the Air Force was an excellent place to learn and develop into a confident woman and that he should let her go.
She became an air traffic controller and re-upped after four years. I like to think I had a part in that little victory, but all too often, the food stamps and the government checks are viewed as a job and security, the reality of our “New Americans”.
Skook, that is totally incorrect, as I stated in my comment above in one of the subthreads. An anchor baby cannot sponsor the family members until they are 21 years of age. Nothing in our federal law supports your, or drj’s statements as accurate. Additionally, as I said above, that would render the section of the AZ immigration law that can deport the entire family, including the anchor baby, as void and in conflict with federal law.
The only reason a family remains here is because the INS refuses to deport and enforce our laws.
If those children were not citizens this would be so much easier.
MataHarley,
So we have defacto chain immigration if INS and Judges are unwilling to deport the mother and father and child, so yes there is an effective anchor here that is very difficult to uproot and send home…because we cannot deny the child his right and we cannot deny the child his parents and we cannot deny the parents their brothers sisters and their parents. Best to just stop it at the baby and not have to rely polititions/judges/INS to make those difficult decisions
This new format is making it difficult to follow multiple subthreads. As I pointed out above with Jenny Aguilar – an 18 yr resisdent with a two year old – they do deport families with anchor babies. How many, none of us have the percentage and status. However just because the news doesn’t report a family being deported doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen daily.
Therefore there is no more difficulty in deporting the entire family than if the child was not a US citizen. No doubt some lawyer will raise a stink tho.
BTW, is anyone else having a problem with the load and typing being slow on a long thread on this new format? Also, I’m finding it difficult to keep chronology of comments… i.e., without looking at the time stamp, is this before or after someone’s comment? Just a sidebar observation.
And another thing — Dr. John mentioned the fictional “anchor babies.” NO ONE who claims “anchor babies” exist can actually identity (a) who they are or (b) how many there are. Indeed, please define the term “anchor baby”! Con favorite Louis “Terror babies” Gohmert (R. [of course] — Texas) was asked how many of these horrific babies there were and . . . he could not answer! What? You want us to change the Constitution based on a phenomena that has not even been documented to exist ANYWHERE!
Indeed, the anchor baby concept does not make much sense: you are implying that pregnant Latinas come to the US for the PURPOSE of having kids in the US, for immigration purposes? Really? What is MORE likely that a non-pregnant woman comes to the US illegally, works here in a restaurant or a hotel or cleaning houses, meets some guy, thinks he is cute, gets pregnant and has a baby at the local hospital. That, of course, is not an “anchor baby” under any rational definition of the phrase; yet I am willing to bet that accounts for 9o% of the births to illegals in the US, with the rest born to people who have overstayed a visa.
Lastly, if you are pro-life, I would expect that you folks would hesitate at doing ANYTHING that might encourage women to abort. If a pregnant woman knows her child will be a citizen and have some rights, I am betting she is more willing to go through the risks associated with child birth. If you marginalize the child BEFORE ITS BORN (and that is what denying birthright citizenship does), you risk putting another roadblock before a woman who is wavering on whether to have an abortion. Indeed, if a woman is illegal and gets word that the hospital will inquire about her legal status when she gives birth, and she wants to stay in the U.S. and not risk deportation, but if she has an abortion, no one will ask about her status . . . need I continue? (Ditto the insanity of denying health care coverage to illegals. If they have insurance, they are more likely to have the baby than if they are uninsured, and they are more likely to get prenatal care, which is MUCH less costly than giving birth without it.)
my boy Sherman —
I used the hillbillies of West Virginia (people I grew up around) to put a real face on the juxtaposition my posts imply — that there are many U.S. born children of illegal immigrants hunkered down in the deserts of Iraq (you know, those people Dr. John would deny citizenship to) while native born folks do nothing but smoke crank and push out babies. But due to his demographic paranoia about Latinos, Dr. John would deny citizenship to the former because of their parents unlawful acts, and ignore the latter altogether! This is dumb and I just said so. I really don’t care if you think it is “hateful” to acknowledge the number of native born Americans who add nothing to the equation.
As I pointed out in my comment up there a few, Billy Bob, there was an August 2010 study of children on illegal immigrants done. I also pointed out the percentage of the total population these new citizens comprise. But I agree that the definition of “anchor babies”, as used here and exampled by a woman back in 2008, is certainly not the description of 340,000 babies born annually as an estimate.
But of course, no one here can tell us how many of those children were born at at the taxpayers’ burden, can they? I guess ya’ll assume that every one of them are non productive workers here with no insurance?
Hang, to show you how nuts that is… ala the very notion of relating baby citizenship status to health care costs specifically… let’s play with some numbers, eh? Drj quotes Rand’s $1.1 billion in health care costs to *all* illegals in 2008. The Pew report noted that in 2008, 340,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants.
Let’s assume that every one of them were a taxpayer burden, as so many of you apparently think. And let’s also assume that 1/3 of these pregnant women had C-sections, as nationwide statistics indicate. Drj says the C-sections are around $4700.
That means 113,333 of the mothers had C-sections to the tune of $532.7 million
That means the rest of the 226,667 mothers had natural childbirth, which averages about $3000 less, so let’s call it $1700, or $385.3 mill
According to the same Pew study, 12.8% of the total US population (about 308 million now) are immigrants (legal or not)… or 39.424 million.
Back to the basic math: We got $918 million for baby making, leaving $182 million for every other illegal’s health care issue in 2008.
At an average hospital cost or stay, or even total annual expenditures of $30,000, about 6067 illegal immigrants got health care after all those babies were born on the taxpayers dime. 6067 immigrants comprises a total of .01539% of the total immigration population.
Puleeeze… you can’t possibly believe that babies comprise the bulk of the $1.1 billion in costs for illegals, do you?
Remember the accusation of this post – that all these babies getting citizenship is what’s costing us a lot of health care money. The real numbers simply do not support that charge.
Reality is:
1: Total health care estimates annually for all illegal immigrant care doesn’t support all the baby making going on, so evidently lots of these immigrants are actually working and contributing residents in the US.
In fact, it’s only 45% of all undocumented illegals that have children at all. (again from the Pew report.. the real one, and not the pundit summary). Boy, don’t that put another fly in the ointment.
2: All those border state hospital figures you guys dredge up? What percentage of those costs were for pregnant illegals, sliding over here to have babies? Or was everyone pregnant at those hospitals and all the money they lost due to delivering babies?
Look, either this post is about babies getting citizenship and the associated health care costs; or it’s about all illegals and medical costs… in which case, you’re all way off off topic INRE the post’s subject, aren’t you?
Illegals and cost of health care is a legitimate debate, and I agree. But this has what to do with baby citizenship?
Nothing. Because babies don’t legitimize their parents. Nor are all the babies born right after mom emerges from the river. Additionally, even if the child were to grow to 21 years of age, the parents have to leave the country for 10 years, and then reapply for entry in order to be sponsored. They’d have to leave by the time the kid was 11.
3: No one can cite what percentage of the total annual Rand costs of $1.1 billion is for babies, which is the centerpiece of this post. But whatever the number is, it has to be low. After all, if you take the 39,424,000 immigrants in this nation, and divvy up that $1.1 billion, every immigrant gets… wait for it… $27.90 worth of coverage! Wow… Seems to me that most have to be productive since you can’t even walk thru the door to a doctor’s office for $27.90.
4: Assuming you’ve figured out that anchor babies don’t make the parents documented or legal in any aspect, history and reality proves that the denial of citizenship doesn’t stop anyone from crossing the border and obtaining healthcare. Rather it’s the promise of an INS who doesn’t enforce the law.
Laws that are NOT Enforced are Rendered Null and VOID through a Failure of the designated Agencies to take the REQUIRED Actions. It is just negligence on the part of the Federal Government.
BUT….try to own a Machine Gun without a Class III Federal License or stop paying Your Taxes and see what happens.
I did not wake up this morning to ponder the thought…Hmmm now… Which Federal Law do I choose to thumb my nose at today…
In the original 14th Amendment debate on the subject it was clearly understood that “under the jurisdiction” meant exclusion of aliens and those subject to a foreign power…on top of ambassadors, etc.
A single reference is made in opinion regarding Chinese immigrant’s children being citizens…but a clear distinction is again provided as those Chinese immigrants were understood to be “legal” and thus “under the jurisdiction” and satisfying the language.
Reference is clearly made to proportion of population and self-annihilation of jurisdiction to recognized foreign nationals (i.e., “wild” native americans which were deemed to be beyond jurisdiction because they were subjects of their nations…recognized by treaty.)
There is even a fascinating discussion regarding Mexico and if the US could unilaterally declare its laws to be those of Mexico as a pretext to what would in effect be a writ of annexation…which the parties of the discussion deemed to be only acceptable if the there was force to make it happen.
However, in actually reading the recorded *words* of those who signed off on the Amendment…it’d be something that Mata and Rob might be interested in looking up.
Particularly the words of Senator Saulsbury just before the vote on the suggested change @ Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg. 2897
Knowledge is out there, you don’t need to rely on a blogger you don’t “trust” …well unless your purpose is to debate what some blogger says instead of the actual issue.
malize, I made no comment in the 14th Amendment debate save to challenge drj’s link to “original intent dot org”, suggesting that the original context of “citizens” was meant only to include “white males”.
Other than that, I have no idea what you’re talking about, and apparently neither do you in reference to me, personally.
I would suggest you read my comments, and not attribute other’s to me. Nor attribute their misinterpretations of my comments as being construed as my own beliefs. Seems to be a lot of that going around here… i.e. my stating there were health spending problems was equating to letting trial attorneys off the hook, etc.
I see absolutely no one has been able to cite how much of the $1.1 billion that Rand cited as total health care costs for illegals in 2008 is for births.
Conversely, nor can anyone link, with an iota of credibility, how much health care costs would be saved by denying these babies citizenship. After all, they cross the river for health care and/or opportunity, pregnant or not. Figured it out, yet?
Since the 14th Amendment allows for exceptions to being considered a birthright citizen, let’s legally make use of that.
Since the children of diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship, why don’t we declare all
illegalundocumented immigrants to be undocumented diplomats? Then, if they do something outrageous, we can declare them person non grata as well. In addition, all costs for their support in this country would be the responsibility of their country of origin.Wouldn’t even have to change the 14th Amendment, just use the euphemism method of reclassification – the left does it all the time.
I highly recommend Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny, he takes a hard look at the 14th Amendment and goes into detail on anchor babies, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and Supreme Court rulings. The book is well worth reading.
MartaHarley,
If the precentage is so low, then what would be the problem making them illegal also, it would affect almost no one. You are happy that no one (almost) gets left out, we are happy that no one illegally gets let in? Win – Win for both sides….
Until I see an actual bill with specifics that changes the definition of “citizen”, it’s hard to comment, Rob in Katy. But I’m not a believer in punishing the innocent (the baby) for the parents’ deeds. After all, that child may grow to be the next major entrepreneur and do magnificent things while taking advantage of this country’s opportunities. As I said, for the parents, nothing. If they want legal citizenship, they must leave when the baby is 11 in order to be sponsored. But then, that robs the child of US education and monetary opportunities in the prime of his/her development of life.
I am the granddaughter of immigrants, and I can see many instances where demanding that a baby’s parents are “citizens” ensnare all too many in the same legal net.
i.e. what about those in the process of obtaining citizenship, but not finalized? Yes or no?
Is the baby’s citizenship dependent upon successful completion of that application for citizenship?
What if the parents decide to forfeit their dual citizenship, or citizenship for another country later? Or is this all about that explicit moment in time of birth?
What about soldiers who marry a foreign citizen they met while on duty overseas? My AF nephew married a Chinese descendent, who was born in Thailand (figure that one out… LOL). Is my grand nephew a US citizen according to your wishes for a law?
What if my niece in law were the daughter of illegal Chinese immigrants, and my nephew married her? Would she be able to obtain legal status?
Be careful what you wish for. Those you wish to punish will simply drag others into the same legal net.
300,000 plus babies born here to illegal alien parents.
Anchor babies.
Still waiting for how much we save in health care costs for not giving citizenship to babies, drj. Too difficult for you?
Well, how about:
for just texas?
How about because it is just wrong to being with. if it were one penny it would be wrong to ask anyone to pay for it. Is stealing a dollar from the collection plate as bad as stealing $10? it is still stealing, you understand that right? It is just morally and legally wrong! It really is simple, they are born to (mostly) Mexican citizens so they are Mexican babies, or Panamanian, or Honduran, or Haitian NOT United States Citizens.
Surely the 14th amendment actively encourages illegal immigration. If you sneak across the border and have a baby then you have confered about them a great gift of american citizenship but in great numbers that surely causes issues with the host population. And I would suspect it makes it harder to deport a family if there kid is an american citizen. Why reward such behaviour? It’s not the baby’s fault but then in the same logic why not then offer automatic american nationality to all mexican kids who were born in Mexico – because it’s not fair on them that their parents didn’t illegally cross into the US. Life isn’t fair. A nation first priorities had to be it’s own citizens.
The UK and Australia manage just fine with having laws that to become a UK citizen you need to have at least one parent who is a citizen. Surely the US has enough influence still left to lean about Mexico to accept that any kids born in the US to one or both mexican parents who crossed illegally into the US – are mexican citizens? As a UK citizen I live in Australia and my 3 boys are all British. If and when we choose to apply for dual nationality – they become Australian – or if they legally reside in Australia for 10 years then automatically become Australian citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specific_national_legislation
Gaffa, no it is not harder to deport a family if there is a minor born in America. The family is still illegally present, and the birth of their child makes not an iota of difference. If the US changes their laws, defining citizenship, then we discuss that. At this point, we are discussing current law. The problem is, and remains, that INS does not enforce the law. Period.
Now the argument is that conferring citizenship on a baby makes it more cost prohibitive if we didn’t confer that citizenship. Apparently drj can’t get the question clear in his mind to answer, as he keeps going back to the same non answer that has nothing to do with the cost of births… or how it would differ if they were not granted citizenship.
Your assumptions to support your blanket bias knows no bounds, does it, drj? Have you got any statistics as to support your lip flap?
On the other hand, I happen to have links that prove you’re speaking from emotional bias, and not from factual statistics. i.e the 2007 study by Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors says that not only do they pay in taxes and into the entitlement systems, they actually pay in more than they get out because they can’t claim the entitlements. Another study here, citing plenty of sources from the Bush WH to CATO Institute, that shows you know nothing of what you claim.
So drj… how much money are we gonna save in health care if babies are no longer born citizens? And what will you use to prove that either illegals here, or pregnant ones coming here while in labor, won’t come without citizen perks? Still waiting… tapping toes, tapping toes
Gaffa, The Problem is getting the Federal Agency, ICE, to follow existing and settled Federal Law.
Under Obama, Napolitano and that Clown, Eric Holder the Law has become a Joke on the “Host” Population and a burden on The Tax Payers, Social Services, Hospital Emergency Rooms that have literally become “Free Clinics” and the Borders are as Secure as a Sieve…
Paying federal taxes? While receiving sub-minimum wage doing the jobs that Americans won’t do?
Who are you kidding?
As for the cost of illegals, it’s in the post.
Cop out, and a dodge worthy of a lib/prog, drj. A C-section for an illegal immigrant will cost $4700 whether the child is granted citizen status, or not. May I remind you of your own link in your own title to your post? “Birthright citizenship has got to end” As I told you, if you want to discuss that any illegal immigrant status is draining our economy, I’m right with you. But still you cannot relate this to citizenship of babies, or a savings.
Now, again, how much money will we save if those babies are not granted citizenship? Let me give you a hint. How much money are we saving for the non pregnant illegal immigrant, enjoying enjoying health benefits? Has the fact they have no “anchor baby” in their future stopped the flow?
Ah, Gaffa, that’s exactly the point.
When we subsidize illegal immigration all we get is more of it.
One dollar is too much. That cost is the tip of the iceberg.
Doc, my issue with this is just the flat out irrelevance of the Rule of Law, the absolute FAILURE of this Regime to enforce the Rule of Law and a general disregard for the Rule of Law being a prevailing attitude here.
Try to pull this crap in any OTHER Nation and see what happens. Immigration Laws are enforced in Mexico.
I agree with that totally. I have something more to say but maybe a post would be a good way to do it.
Ok. …Now..if Child Birth was only $2.50 a pop (No Pun intended) and C-Sections were $3.00 that makes no difference here to me.
It is the attitude that Respect for Our Laws on the Part of these “Undocumented Folks” and ICE, Homeland Security and the Current Regime is NIL. That gets my goat. Disregard for the Rule of Law on the part of those that are SWORN to uphold it is just plain absolutely Shameless. That may be an Old Fashioned notion on my part but I’m holding that as my Point here.
Treating Hospital Emergency Rooms like “Free Clinics” is just a symptom of the growing disregard for the Law and Obama Care does nothing but add to the problem as costs are rising for Care due to that. That is my issue on this. When the Rule of Law is absent, the outcome is not gonna be Peachy.
@MataHarley:
Your insistence on trying to avoid the original intent of the “jurisdiction” question by saying you don’t care about “the citizenship” angle is pretty clear. In the discussion of the 39th Congress regarding this amendment this subject is gone over on the record…which is what I was pointing out. They are inseparable…you cannot consider the one without the other. The original intent was never to provide for aliens who have bypassed the legal immigration system either by malice or ignorance to accrue citizenship to their offspring. ..that was “read into” the discussion by some very result-oriented legislative engineering by the SCOTUS over time which converted “jurisdiction” to a purely geographical context based solely around Senator Bingham’s viewpoint and not taking into account clear statements by other Senators in debate (an apparent majority of opinion on record) that they would not support an amendment based around purely geographical definitions.
There are people flying into the USA to have their babies just so their baby will be a US citizen.
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/07/anchor_babies_no_more_us_citizenship.html
@ Mata #59
It’s a new day, so let me take a cut at it. First of all, I question the $4,700 figure that is mentioned on this thread. That is probably the Medicaid reimbursement which about half the actual cost. Having had surgery in the family lately, I know that just the anesthesiologist costs ~$1,000. The OR charges by the hour, but probably $6,000 is in the ballpark. Normal surgeons would charge maybe $3,000 for a 45 minute operation, but we all know that OB/GYNs have huge malpractice insurance burdens. So my ballpark estimate is more like $10,000 for a C-section. A poster on a pregnancy/birth forum offered: “I had an uninsured c-section last January. It cost me a total of $14,000 which included OR, Anesthesiology, Nursing, well-baby newborn nursery, my surgeon, surgical trays and supplies and my room and board for 3 days.”
E-How reports
USA Today claims that 8% of the 4.3 million births in the U.S. each year are to illegal aliens. That works out to 344,000 anchor babies.
For purposes of my humble attempt to answer your question, let’s estimate that a C-section costs $11,000, a normal birth costs $8,800, and of the 344,000 anchor baby births each year, 114,000 are C-section and 230,000 are normal and uncomplicated.
So my HP-35S tells me all that works out to roughly $3.3 billion per year if my math is correct. I’m just speculating here, but I think only about half of that is reimbursed, leaving a billion dollar hole in the budgets of American hospitals every year. This is going to kill all of us if we allow it to continue.
People do not seem to know that those anchor babies or at least Mexican ones are automaticaly Mexican citizens, because so says the Mexican Constitution. So if the parents are illegal and so is the baby, how are they subject to the”jurisdiction thereof”?
Mexican law!
According to the Mexican Constitution, Capitulo II, Articulo 30, the child born to, or begotten by, a Mexican is a Mexican, regardless of where he is born.
Here’s the relevant part, in both in both the English translation and the Spanish original:
“The Mexicans by birth shall be…The individuals born abroad from Mexican parents who were born within national territory, from a Mexican father who was born within national territory or from a Mexican mother who was born within national territory…The Individuals born abroad from naturalized Mexican parents, from a naturalized Mexican father or from a naturalized Mexican mother…
[Son mexicanos por nacimiento…los que nazcan en el extranjero, hijos de padres mexicanos nacidos en territorio nacional, de padre mexicano nacido en territorio nacional, o de madre mexicana nacida en territorio nacional;
… los que nazcan en el extranjero, hijos de padres mexicanos por naturalizacion, de padre mexicano por naturalizacion, o de madre mexicana por naturalizacion…]
Thus, any child born to a Mexican parent—either mother or father, regardless of whether that parent is a natural-born Mexican or naturalized Mexican—regardless of where he is born, is considered a Mexican.
And Mexican consulates have the authority to issue documentation to children born to Mexicans outside of Mexico, to confirm it.
Think about what that means. According to Mexican law, every child born in the United States to a Mexican mother or Mexican father is a citizen of Mexico. [VDARE.com note: This would include George P. Bush, son of Jeb Bush and Columba Garnica Gallo.]
That means all these anchor babies born to illegal alien Mexican mothers in our hospitals (often at public expense) are entitled to be Mexican citizens.
It also means that all children born to Mexicans who are legally in this country are also entitled to be Mexican citizens.
So why on earth are we declaring them American citizens? According to Mexican law, they are under the jurisdiction of Mexico.
In recent years, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, France and India have all modified their birthright citizenship laws to require that one parent at least be a legal resident in order to confer birthright citizenship.
No matter how small the cost to support illegals, “It is not yours to give….”
Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,”
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and—‘
“Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”
“This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
” ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
” ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
” ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
” ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’ “The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’
” ‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’
“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
” ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
” ‘If I don’t’, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’
” ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
” ‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’
” ‘My name is Bunce.’
” ‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
” ‘Yes.’
” ‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
” ‘Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’”
“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
” ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
” ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:
” ‘Fellow-citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’
“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
@John Cooper, I’d say your estimates were closer than the $4700 which may be, as you say, a Medicaid reimbursement price. Most of the surgery alone figures I saw were about $6000. And that doesn’t include any prenatal care.
Your figures mean three things.
1: Considering the 2008 Rand estimate of $1.1 billion health care spending for all illegals health care (not just pregnancy), it would appear that most of the 340,000 babies are not being born on the taxpayers’s dime since that figure doesn’t support so many pregnancy medical bills … and
2: A C-section for an illegal having an illegal citizen baby will cost $10,000 ballpark … and
3: A C-section for an illegal having a US citizen baby will still cost $10,000 ballpark.
Get my drift yet? The citizen status doesn’t affect the spending. It costs the same to deliver that baby, whether it’s a citizen or not.
Yet a few of you here seem to believe that if the baby does not become a US citizen, they’ll just stay in Mexico, or whatever other country of origin.
Now why on earth would you think that? Do you think that annual estimate of 340,000 babies were all born when the moms emerged fresh from the river, fields or tunnel from the border crossing? No. They come here anyway. Whether they are pregnant when they arrive, or whether they get pregnant years later.
I will attempt to drill this in one more time…. I am in full agreement that care for illegals is one of our major problems with health care spending. In fact, illegals not being insured was the main talking point for shoving thru health care. However the fact that a baby does, or does not, get citizenship at birth doesn’t change a thing when it comes to the costs of delivery.
Which brings me to @Smorgasbord:, and his link. First let me congratulate you on getting something more recent than April 2008, as was the subject in the post. However your link is just a pro/con argument… similar to what is going on here… about “anchor babies” in general. There are no stats of how out of control this is in the scheme of things.
Addtionally, Roy Beck, who wants the definition of citizenship changed, avoids the reality that it takes 21 years for that baby to play “sponsor”, and that the parents would have to leave the country for 10 years before they can be sponsored. Omission of convenience, I guess.
Instead he says the baby “retards deportation”. Let’s get the facts straight. A family with an “anchor baby” is legally ripe for deportation. The only reason they aren’t is because the INS refuses to do their job.
In fact, I did run across some stats of deportation of those with US born babies. It was a study by US Berkeley and US Davis, and says that 88,000 families with a US born child were deported over the past decade. Evidently it happens quite a bit, altho the motivation seemed to be the parents were convicted of “minor criminal convictions”… ala nonviolent drug offenses, simple assaults and drunk driving. One parent was deported after selling $5 worth of drugs.
ADDED: Here is a direct link to the March 2010 study at the UC Davis website.
Can those families retain a lawyer and delay the deportation? Of course. 5th Amendment, due process, which is also reinterated in the 14th. But then again, an immigrant who does *not* have an “anchor baby” can also delay the deportation by doing the same…. and quite often does.
So what’s the difference?
It all comes down to the same problem. The INS and feds refuse to do their jobs, and the baby’s citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with it. They can be deported with, or without a US baby.
@malize, my “insistence”, as you put it is far less nefarious than you choose to portray it. When Constitutional language appears to be left open to interpretation, I turn to SCOTUS opinions on record.
But in the case of the 14th, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to interpret the phrase:
That’s pretty direct. Born here, you are a citizen. Period. Not much open to misinterpretation there. Doesn’t matter what it’s original intent was because the Amendment’s language is explicit in a court of law. Yet you say SCOTUS has become creative interpreting this? How is that possible?
The child has no powers of sponsorship of parents until 21 years of age, nor does the birth confer any citizenship benefits upon the parents or siblings. This is not via the 14th, but by our federal immigration laws.
I would guess that many here want a Constitutional Amendment that changes that simple description. I would have to reserve an opinions until I saw the devil in the details. But on the surface, I would think it would be more prudent to address the path to citizenship via a child’s birth with immigration regulations instead of a Constitutional amendment. Altho I don’t see that a 21 year path to sponsorship of the parents, only after they leave the country for 10 years and reapply, is exceptionally lax. Nor do I care to punish the child for the sins of the parents.
@MataHarley:
The SCOTUS changed the accepted understanding of “jurisdiction” to be *only* geographical in nature a generation after the 14th Amendment was passed. Based on the debate in the 39th Congress there were clear discussions about how geographical jurisdiction was not the only component to the question of overall jurisdiction as related to citizenship.
In later rulings this was reinforced because they relied upon they cited the earlier precedents.
Yet, as I state, you can read the six pages of discussion at the passage of the Amendment and you’ll see what was in the minds of the men who were voting on it.
The reason they made the language so “rocket science” simple is because of their fears for the recently freedmen being singled out…and these were real fears as the last comment from the floor summarized. There was to be no wiggle room for any state to disenfranchise the blacks (even though some eventually did anyway.)
As I have stated REPEATEDLY if you read the 39th Congress debate you’ll see exactly what I am talking about.
@Rob in Katy: Not Yours to Give is one of My Favorites and I cite it often. Thanks for posting it!
Not Yours to Give Indeed!
Judges do not rule based on Congressional debates or intent unless the specific Constitutional arguments before them warrant diving back for clarification because of a hazy guideline, malize. ( i.e. the 2nd Amendment, the phrase “general welfare”, likely even the Commerce Clause coming up with the O’healthcare battles, etc.)
However there is nothing vague about the “rocket science” simple language in the 14th.
Courts have noted this. Elk v Wilkins was a no brainer since Native Americans were not in the US jurisdiction (neither are the children of diplomats). However Wong Kim Ark is a perfect example of how the son of two Chinese citizen immigrants, who lived and worked in this nation, was indeed established as a citizen by SCOTUS in 1898 – 30 years after the 14th was ratified. Chinese were prohibited to be naturalized in those days. The best that can be said about Wong’s parents is that they had a silent amnesty via the Chinese Exclusion Act… they were allowed to stay, but no status of any note conferred.
As I said… you can’t misinterpret such direct language. Nor can you argue with SCOTUS rulings just three decades later. I’m sure the robed ones of that era had a better handle on the 39th’s “intent” that you do today.
Speaking of intent, when constructing the amendment, Congress could have stipulated that those born here needed to be born to either birthright or to naturalized citizens… but they did not. Even in those days, immigration wasn’t a foreign concept. But they also lived in a time when States could exercise their own immigration controls and refuse entry and obviously many wanted to retain that State power.
The debate, the debate. What makes you think I’m unaware of the debate you speak of? Or even the wobbly timeline and embattled history of the ratification? Really now, malize. It’s pretty common and summaries are all over the internet and have been for years. And, BTW, since you don’t care to provide the link, I’ll provide the Library of Congress link for you. But you might start reading some of the dissenting opinions over these debates.
What you seem to miss out of the debate is that John Bingham was the only one to tie the parents national “allegience” to child’s citizenship. Bingham, oddly enough, was an Opposition Party member from Ohio. Guess he wasn’t so warmly welcoming as historians would like us to believe about the Oppositionists, eh?
The rest remained firmly rooted that a child’s birthplace was your country, and it was more of a battle of not wishing to confer property rights, electoral rights, and others afforded to citizens… even despite the fact they were happy to admit the immigrants were under the jurisdiction of the nation (i.e. protections or even prosecution for breaking our laws). Nor was everyone on the same page. So to portray the debate as proof the majority didn’t want “anchor babies” is also not genuine. In fact, their passage of the proposal proves exactly the opposite.
Remember that the 14th proposal was created in a Congress where the Republican party of that era held huge majorities in both chambers, and continued to hold that power in the 40th Congressional session when the 14th was ultimately made part of the Constitution. Apparently, these Republicans felt the “simple language” was indeed befitting their intent… knowing full well that Chinese immigrants procreating in the country would be benefitting.
Therefore, you can state “repeatedly” as loud and often as you want about the 39th Congressional debate, but the overwhelming Congressional majority knew full well what they were doing with this language.
Therefore the debate – which contained pro and con of some of the members only – means absolutely nothing when it doesn’t end up as Amendment language. Nor can you expect the courts to set precedents based on a Congressional debate of a few, and not the letter and language of the Amendment as passed and ratified (after much ballyhoo…) by the states, as written.
So what, pray tell, is your point? If you want citizenship redefined, you either embark on the very iffy process of another Constitutional Amendment (good luck with that), or you attempt to do so via immigration laws and hope that they don’t get hauled into court as being in conflict with the 14th. But wishing and hoping about what Congress “meant” doesn’t change a thing.
I would think your frustration would be put to better use, demanding that the immigration laws be enforced. Performing that Constitutional duty that they ignore may simply cure most your beefs, and the child could return to the US once they reached a point to be a self sufficient producer as a young adult. That’s if they are even interested after 21 years in another country.
@MataHarley:
Actually Mata, read the SCOTUS decisions from such trials as US vs. Wong Kim Ark, etc. Reference is made to the lower courts and the justices themselves *RESEARCHING* the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. They didn’t just interpret the wording as is as you assert.
The fact that I didn’t provide the link means nothing, not sure what your point is about that. You want me to do your work for you?
The problem with your argument is that you are not recognizing that the Wong Kim Ark decision in itself does not necessarily apply to illegal aliens, since as you yourself stated the foreign parents in question were legally present in the country.
At the crux of the problem is “jurisdiction” and the fact that the 39th Congress recognized that there was a difference in jurisdiction. Like the Plyler decision…the jurisdiction is referenced, but it is what Sen. Williams refers to in the middle of pg. 2897…the obvious geographical jurisdiction. Also the dissenting comments of Plyler point out the very selective interpretation the majority made to reach their decision regarding placing physical jurisdiction as primary.
The point I’m trying to make is that the understanding of what “jurisdiction” meant to the 39th Congress (and clearly through their references to the tribal or alien (if you will) Indians, not through Chinese who were clearly allowed in the country on a legal basis) — this would be along the lines of “full and complete jurisdiction” – exactly a pov that Sen. Williams summarizes in his contribution…and you yourself point out. As sick as it may seem, it was those non-taxed indians which were the “illegals” they were concerned about, for exactly the same reasons we have problems with granting blanket citizenship amnesty (again) — granting a potential majority alien population (in some regions/states) the franchise of citizenship. You cannot deny that this is clearly stated more than once. It was not in doubt that those persons of minorities (such as the Chinese who are mentioned) who were in the country by accepted means should be able to have the franchise transferred to their children (as a caveat, the numbers of these accepted “legal” alien populations, such as the Chinese, were deemed to much of a minority to be threatening to the civil society at large …something also explicitly stated — – i.e., easy to either integrate or ignore.)
(and no, I don’t think a rational person would accept that just because illegals are taxed by accident through fraudulent uses of legal identities it would change their non-taxed status. I think this is a case clearly made in the decisions found INS v. Rios-Pineda regarding the illegal intent of the parents.)
However, in the end I’m pragmatic enough to think that there won’t be any removal of citizenship granted to date, and I wholly agree about enforcing the laws, etc. Also I agree that Congress should take immediate steps to close this loophole as it regards illegal aliens of any stripe with the powers granted to them by the Constitution to make immigration law because I believe such a law would rest firmly on the Rios-Pineda precedent when brought before the SCOTUS. Basically we accept the “anchors” we’ve gotten so far, but close the door and say “no more.”
It would be relatively elegant in that such a move would not disenfranchise any “anchors,” remove the “incentive” to have babies in the states by illegals (at least for reasons of citizenship, if Mary and Joseph were to sneak into El Paso because they could not get the maternity clinic care they desired below the Rio Grande, that’s their business and another matter entirely IMO…as long as their healthy born child doesn’t get an “instant franchise” blessing.) It would be like the proclamation that freed no slaves 🙂
The problem with *your* argument is that you either did not read Wong Kim Ark, do not understand either the SCOTUS opinion, or you are clueless to the Chinese Exclusion Act (and subsequent amendments) and how it differs from the 1986 amnesty.
That act is completely different from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which allowed for a path to citizenship. The Chinese Exclusion Act and ensuing amendments not only prohibited Chinese from ever becoming citizens, it made it impossible for them to reenter the country if they left.
In specific point, no where in the Wong opinion did the justices consider the legal or illegal status of the parents as part of their deliberation. They repeatedly state that birth within the country is not only the original intent but also consistent with international law and colonial law… with two exceptions. Children born to diplomats, and children born to foreign enemies occupying hostile territory. Period.
SCOTUS merely notes – with no reference to their original entry to the nation – that the parents of Wong (subjects of China)- are simply domiciled in the US, not in the diplomatic service, and working in the country. The Chinese Exclusion Act is not once evoked in order to clarify the parents’ status, nor do they consider their presence in the nation as an integral part of their decision at all.
Therefore, your attempts to read something into SCOTUS that is simply not there is a pipedream.
As far as researching the intent, which you seem to think supports your claim about anchor babies and status of the parents as legal or illegally present, that again is debunked in Wong. At every turn, the justices note that outside the exceptions of diplomats and enemies occupying hostile territory – plus excluding the native American community because of tribal sovereignty – the very birth within the country in international law was the universally accepted definition of citizenship and was consistent with the Constitution as established. The language in the amendment was simple, direct, and conforms to the original intent of the Constitution as established and common law internationally.
In response to your comment here:
I believe you miss the crux of the arguments vis a vis Chinese vs Indian. Leaving aside their personal distaste for both that was prevalent in the era, there was a distinct jurisdiction immunity enjoyed by tribal sovereignty that was not enjoyed by the Chinese immigrants. Unlike the Native Americans, the Chinese were subject to the complete and full jurisdiction of this governments laws, with no immunity.
Thus the jurisdiction argument you attempt does not apply to today’s alien subjects. To this date, the Indian nations still have no direct access to US courts, and must only litigate with the US system with the approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The taxing of the native American community argument centered around that power actually being an unintended path to becoming citizens… merely by the powers of taxation. Again, totally unrelated to illegal immigrants.
So you’re proposing amnesty for what is already legal US citizens via our law? LOL Interesting concept.
Look, malize, to change the definition of citizenship is going to take a Constitutional amendment. I don’t see that as even possible in this era. Without that, and excluding the existing exceptions of diplomats etal, babies born here are US citizens. End of story. They can attempt to place more limitations on birthright babies within regulations… ala they can attempt to totally strip their ability to sponsor family members at any time. Even that action would (rightly) bring challenge to the courts… i.e. why is a birthright citizen denied the rights of other citizens just because of parental status at birth.
INRE Rios-Pineda, as @I pointed out above, familes with US born children are deported… and for minor criminal reasons such as drunk driving. One might realistically extend the “illegal intent” of parents to include a parcel of speeding tickets. Even those, however, are unnecessary under our current laws. Their mere presence in the nation makes them ripe for deportation… even while being law abiding residents every waking moment of their lives.
This deportation has been going on for quite some, and yet is not the deterrent you’d hope. They either assume they will not get caught, or not get deported even if caught.
Again I will point out the deterrent you seek is aptly demonstrated by AZ’s immigration law, and their promise of enforcement of both state and federal laws. Note it was just the *promise* of enforcement that had an immediate effect. This is proof that the greatest deterrent is our federal government promising to actually enforce laws on the books… none of which requires Constitutional amendments changing citizenship status by birth.
So I gather you are more upset about the citizen status that a child is powerless to use for 21 years than you are about the costs erroneously linked to that birth citizenship here in the post subject? That’s darned interesting… because I’m more concerned about this nation’s fiscal burden increasing because of illegal immigration. I just see different ways to deter… and it’s got nothing to do with changing the Constitution’s definition of citizenship.
Lastly, I want to address your personally snide remark:
You’ve only been around here as a commenter for a little over a month. And it might behoove you to go thru both author and comment archives to familiarize yourself with the community. The bulk of us generally provide hotlinks so that those who may not know what is being discussed can learn and catch up on the source subject. It’s about spreading the wealth of knowledge, and not only acts as source material to back up the lip flap, but provides an avenue of education for others.
Secondly, few people around here can accuse me of being under researched in either commentary, or my authored posts here on FA. I assure you, my research abilities are not what is in question – as you so condescendingly allude to – and suspect I could dance circles around your’s. However I always provide the courtesy of links so others can pick up extra knowledge and have the benefit of source material instead of depending upon my commentary.
So the links are twofold…
1: the source material is made available so nothing can be taken out of context and misrepresented by a commenter’s summary (as you have done, erroneously and repeatedly) and
2: as a courtesy to others
@MataHarley: Wow!
No Comments from our Resident Para Legal, Robbie, on this. Hmm…
Now now, OT… you giving Billy Bob a promotion to paralegal?? LOL
@MataHarley: Yup. The least I could do…after all, He has contributed so much here!
both Rob and Obama ARE Constitutional Scholars to some degree. When the part they favor is referenced.
The Constitution is a Buffet. If you don’t like some parts, just leave it off your plate…
Yeah… the legal bit becomes dicey. Problem is so many approach the Constitution and our law with a specific goal in mind. Usually a way to figure out a Constitutional path to limit or deny someone’s rights that they don’t like or agree with. Few things are as direct as the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship and birth. No brainer. But that becomes very inconvenient if you have the goal to ban what they want to call “anchor babies”.
That term, itself, is somewhat a misnomer. A US born babe to illegal immigrants provides no sanctuary for the parents, nor confers any legal presence benefits. Therefore the birth “anchors” no one but the child itself. But should the parents be deported, the child can’t take advantage of it’s birthright until they are independent young adults. Immigration law generally places anyone under 18 in the “unaccompanied minor” status. So it would be interesting to see what would happen if a birthright baby attempted to return, alone, before it’s 18th birthday.
I contend that 14th still says that only children born of citizens or those here legally are conferred citizen ship. The Jurisdiction clause applied to babies of slaves because their parents were under the jurisdiction of the United States. Illegals are not, they owe no allegiance or alliance to the USA, neither does their baby. Illegals are under no such “jurisdiction” until after they have been caught and are under the custody of the USA. Look to any other country in the world (almost) for precedent, heck just look to Mexico. So if you either apply precedent or look to the jurisdiction clause, babies born to illegals, consulate or other visiting dignitaries are the citizens of the parent country. It really is simple as long as you don’t try and construe it to cover something that it does not.
Rob in Katy, We’re not talking about other countries laws here. We are talking about US citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment. And I’m afraid SCOTUS disagrees with your personal opinion.
Remember that in Wong SCOTUS opinion, his parents owed obvious “allegiance” (in the nationality sense, if not emotionally) to China. Nor did they have a prayer of becoming naturalized. Therefore SCOTUS rejects what intent you attempt to place upon the 14th, as written, to randomly bind jurisdiction and/or allegiance. One of the framers of the Citizenship Clause, Jacob Howard, said:
Lyman Trumbull, the second framer of the Citizenship Clause added:
Ironically, this same Congress who – while fully acknowledging they were granting Chinese immigrant children birthright citizenship – were simultaneously denying the parents their own ability to become naturalized. So if they were demanding that the parents had to be naturalized citizens, or owe some allegiance that fits your personal definition, they would not have considered granting the Asian babies citizenship.
But it fits with the language…. for the child is born under full jurisdiction of the nation, and owes no allegiance to any other nation. The parental nationality, or subject status, is not inherited. Again, the specific language:
The newborn, and naturalized citizens are certainly subject to the US jurisdiction, and have no conflicting allegiance. The language does not make a single reference to the parents’ status – as confirmed by SCOTUS in Wong – even tho they too were subject to US jurisdiction. Quite simply, that phrase is in there specifically to exclude diplomatic children and Indians who were *not* subject to the full or complete jurisdiction of the US.
If we use your personal interpretation of “jurisdiction” – erroneously melding “subject matter jurisdiction” with emotional or national allegiance – you are suggesting that the federal or local governments have no authority to apply our laws to illegal immigrants – or even those who are in the process of being naturalized or here with visas – today. In fact, with your own description, you consider yourself not subject to the US jurisdiction until, for some reason, you are apprehended and in law enforcement custody. I think you can see that’s an absurd viewpoint and not remotely true. Anyone present here, and not enjoying diplomatic immunity or tribal sovereignty, indeed is subject to our laws and also enjoy the protections of our law with due process, etc. Even the imported Gitmo terrorists, once their tootsies touch US soil.
Instead, SCOTUS noted that Wong’s parents were domiciled in the country. This domicile status of the parents, not their allegiance – ala being subjects of China – mattered in their deliberation.
It was their permanent domicile residence and business, combined with the direct language of the 14th, that is abundantly clear thru out all of the Wong opinion.
So yes, it really is “…simple, as long as you don’t try and construe it to cover something that it does not”. The 14th language does not cover the parental status, allegiance, or even jurisdiction in any way, shape or form.
Stop and think for a second before you start trying to stuff words in my mouth.
Because apparently you didn’t think hard enough about what I typed to begin with and/or you yourself *DID NOT READ WONG*
It’s really simple now…the precedent of Wong applies to persons who are domiciled in the country under an assumed legal status *AT THE TIME OF WONGS BIRTH* which PREDATED the Exclusion Act. The Exclusion Act had ZERO BERING on the status of Wongs parents at the time of birth, which is EXACTLY what I was referring to.
Let’s summarize this so you don’t have to chase your own tail:
1) Wong was born c. 1870 in the United States of (at the time) legally resident aliens.
2) Wong was an accepted citizen of the US, but had exited the country to visit China and was caught up in the Exclusion acts of that *LATER* time.
3) Wong’s SCOTUS case fixed his *unquestioned* citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Wong’s parents status *at the time of birth* is of direct relation to applying the Wong decision to illegal alien births today.
Not irrelevant at all.
The Indians and Illegals both exist outside the tax structure and are foreign nationals. While today’s illegals are unquestionably within the legal and physical jurisdiction -as established in Rios-Peneda…it is not “full and complete” because of their status — the exact reverse situation of the Chinese aliens.
Rios-Peneda recognized the proximate “jurisdiction”…the obvious physical jurisdiction. The point you *MISSED* or simply did not understand that I was making (because from your comments you clearly missed the boat) was that Rios-Peneda sets the precedent to fall back on to justify a law for excluding *FUTURE* illegal alien births from citizenship.
You assume I was talking about amnesty when in fact what I was saying is it would be impracticable to attempt to figure out exactly which children were born to illegals in the past forty years since that particular status isn’t recorded on a birth certificate and all manner of caterwauling and “unfairness” would arise from attempting to do so. Those children have been accepted as citizens to date and attempting to retroactively identify them would simply be to onerous and distracting from the matter at hand.
Look Mata, the Constitution grants Congress the right to set the goalposts of citizenship and naturalization. What I was stating (and you misinterpreted) was that Rios-Peneda (the discussion of intent of the aliens and relationship to deportation) provides the fallback precedent for any constitutional challenge to changes in the US Code regarding eligibility and naturalization (i.e., specifically denying the franchise to children born here of illegals post a certain date, which could be done via Title 8 S.1101 or Title 18 S.1015 or both.)
This quote is simply foolish, especially since it relies on your previous assumptions or misreading/misinterpretation of what I typed. The point to what I had typed would be that if the franchise would be explicitly denied to the children of illegals, then post the effective date of such the need of “Joseph and Mary” to jump the border would be strictly for health care reasons than with the hopes of creating an anchor. The “fiscal” burden currently experienced would by default be reduced already (in the post-law example given) due to the absence of franchise incentive to the birth, not because I am any less concerned about those costs.
As far as dancing circles…I have yet to see you doing so.
As far as linking, that’s fine. Personally where I have spent a number of years “doing battle” with scum sucking rabid leftists it’s obviously far more rabid and I am normally less inclined to waste time to link to sources that may otherwise be helpful. For that you have my apologies.
Here’s the US Codes-
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1101.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001015—-000-.html
Wong: http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
Rios: http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/444/case.html
Plyler: http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html
The funny part is that we are mostly in agreement, if not almost wholly in agreement, yet you are so offended that you are reading and assuming instead of (apparently) reading and thinking.
Yes, malize… we actually are mostly in agreement. I believe we just differ on the ways to clamp down on illegal traffic on our borders, and both of us get mired in the legal details. But then, along the way, we all learn something, eh?
You miss my point about Wong, and instead get bogged in the timeline, malize. Yes, I was wrong to even mention the Exclusion Act since it wasn’t in existence then. But my point was *no where* in the Wong opinion do the justices evoke the status of the parents to decide if Wong could reenter the States (this being his second time of reentry, not the first… yes I read the opinion), other than they were domiciled here in the US with a business. They didn’t discuss their entry, the length of time they were here, nor specific laws of the State (which then were the deciding factors for entry). Zip, nada nothing.
Why? Nothing in the 14th Amendment makes demands on the parents.
Speaking of timelines, Wong was born two years after ratification of the 14th. His parents were still, and probably remained, subjects of China. It is not noted since SCOTUS didn’t address them in that context. The Chinese Exclusion Act wasn’t passed until 1882, so the parents had no benefit for that quasi-amnesty on the day Wong was born… (since, as you say, what were the laws the day he was born). But when you consider the date of his birth, there is no notable documentation that Wong’s parents were “legal”. Even with that retroactive act, SCOTUS still doesn’t pull that into their deliberation.
So even the argument of Wong’s parental status at the time of his birth simply doesn’t work. Again, a moot point since SCOTUS never once addressed the parental status at the time of his birth in their deliberation. The fact they didn’t should really give you a heads up you’re traveling the wrong legal path here.
Chinese back then didn’t even have access to the courts without witnesses… again you will read that in your 39th Congressional debate. Remember the part about how they couldn’t even testify against those robbing them blind on the roadways?
Yet with no ability or desires for them to become naturalized citizens, at that time or even after the Chinese Exclusion Act, and with full knowledge they would be conferring US citizenship on the babies of the Chinese born here, Congress *still* passed the 14th proposal. Considering the events and personal prejudices at the time, how can you continue to argue that parental citizen or legal status was something Congress considered important as intent, but yet created a proposal with poor language that didn’t reflect this intent?
In Wong, it came down to utter simplicity… the kid was born here, and the parents weren’t diplomats or Native American, and the 14th said so. Period.
Boy will that come of a surprise to all the states that are collecting taxes from those undocumented types. Please go back and click on the studies about undocumented revenue @in my comment #68. In addition to that tax revenue, as consumers they certainly are forced into paying sundry sales taxes as well. This is simply not a factual statement, malize.
Yes, it does. Don’t disagree. Citizenship is the domain of Congress. And Congress, along with the states’ ratification, has enshrined the definition of citizenship into the 14th. So now any regulation changes will have to be consistent with that Constitutional amendment. Perhaps they will survive challenges, and perhaps they won’t. We can’t even speculate until we have new regulations, plus a court case with specific events and circumstances, to work with.
Now we come full circle to the subject of drj’s reader post, and my yet unanswered question… just how much cash are we supposedly saving by denying citizenship? If the quest is superior medical care, for no charge, why on earth does citizenship make a difference? As I have said, not all the 340,000 annual estimate of births are those from mothers who arrive from the river, fields or tunnel and often happen years after they are here. Nor are all the costs for illegal medical care pregnancy related.
So again, I can only say “huh???” Exactly what are we “saving”? A birth costs “x” amount of dollars, whether that baby is a citizen upon arrival or not. I don’t see citizenship being a deterrent.
My guess is we’ll never come to agreement on that point. But then, we do agree on the overall costs of illegals for medical, plus the problem of illegal traffic, being integral to address.
And yes… thank you for links. (tho I have already provided several of them already) Our archives are full of the the simple (and paraphrased) “links please” requests from all of us. One thing about FA you’ll learn, malize… we even distrust our “own” side for misrepresentation, and all of us like to have the source material for a better comprehension of the subject at hand. It’s amazing all the extra stuff people pick up when we have the source material that get posted in ensuing comments. So I look forward to more “battles” with a kindred spirit here. Welcome, and have at it, guy.