BOGUS BIRTHRIGHT
It's time that Americans living in a nation of laws decide if we want to keep rewarding law-breakers
BY KEN WARD
For all the talk and posturing on Capitol Hill, America's immigration problem isn't primarily about gardeners, construction workers or jobs that "Americans won't do." But it IS about labor. Each year, nearly 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants living in this country. According to the conventional interpretation of the 14th Amendment, those children are automatic citizens.
Though the law doesn't prohibit deportation, the reality is that these "anchor babies" give cover to their mothers (and fathers where available) to stay here, helping to build on the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens residing within our borders.
With one in four U.S. births by immigrant mothers - about half of them here illegally - "birthright citizenship" undermines any possibility of an orderly immigration program. With the next generation already assured legal status, "temporary worker" initiatives by the Bush administration and Democrats are next to worthless.
"People are coming here simply for the purpose of having a child here and then, because they're the anchor, they can have all the family come in on that child's ticket," says Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "There are thousands upon thousands doing it."
So Tancredo and 80 House colleagues are co-sponsoring H.R. 698, which would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. That may strike some as radical revisionism, but, in fact, the exact intent of the 14th Amendment has never been definitively ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Section 1 of the amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
The amendment was enacted to ensure civil rights for newly freed slaves after the War Between the States. But some constitutional scholars believe it's being misapplied to the tidal wave of Hispanics crashing this country's borders.
"Birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owning allegiance to another country), was the constitutional mandate," John C. Eastman, law professor at Chapman (Calif.) College, told the House Judiciary Committee last fall.
Eastman's view is shared by many Americans. In November, a Rasmussen Poll found that 49 percent thought children born to illegals should not be entitled to citizenship while 41 percent said they should. That's surprisingly sharp division on a subject that was supposedly settled almost 150 years ago.
In fact, the crucial "jurisdiction" clause was included precisely because lawmakers of the day did not want to open immigration floodgates through the womb. "This (amendment) will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens," Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan declared at the time.
It's worth pointing out that neither Mexico nor any European country recognizes or bestows birthright citizenship to aliens. It's also noteworthy that, in 1992, it took an act of Congress to give American Indians citizenship. Why would that be if they already had it? Certainly, Native Americans had a stronger case than our latest imports from Mexico and points south.
H.R. 698, authored by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., would bring some much-needed and long-overdue clarity to this critical piece of the immigration debate. It's about time that Americans, who presumably live in a nation of laws, decide if we want to keep rewarding law-breakers.
Should sneaking into this country and having a baby be a family entitlement to the privileges and blessings of U.S. citizenship? If the answer is yes, immigration "reform" will remain nothing more than talk. LW
