Bio
I started out as a wee child with a love of magazines -- the old fashioned magazines with really good writing, such as Saturday Review or really powe...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Debate Over "Birthright Citizenship" Opens Historical Wounds

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 26
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

In May, I wrote about efforts by some state legislators and members of Congress to deny US citizenship to children born in the United States to parents lacking proof of legal US residency.  Now, a prominent Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, has rankled members of his own party and even prominent anti-immigration activists by suggesting it's time to change the 14th amendment  to the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to people "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  

WASHINGTON - JULY 20: U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pauses during a markup hearing for the Kagan confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 20, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee has voted 13-6, in favor of President Obama s nomination of Elena Kagan to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to replace Justice John Paul Stevens who has retired on June 29, 2010. Sen. Graham has casted the only Republican vote for Kagan. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Graham's idea has drawn criticism from even ardent immigration hawks as former Ambassador Alan Keyes and former television anchor Lou Dobbs, and a Constitutional amendment is probably not politically feasible. However, Graham and a few other like-minded politicians have given credence to an argument that was once the exclusive province of the nep-Confederate movement and other elements of the extreme right wing.

 

Of "Birthright Tourism" and "Terror Babies"

Late last month, Graham told Fox News:

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

According to an April 14, 2010 ABC news report, the practice Graham described, "birth tourism," "is difficult to track and largely anecdotal." (An analysis of ABC News' report by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters found it full of "contradictions, dubious claims" and "misleading sources.") Nor, according to a former high-ranking FBI agent, is there evidence to support Rep. Louis Gohmert's statement that some of these people are giving birth to "terror babies" who get American passports for their children so that they can return to the US and commit terrorist acts. 

report released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2008, about 340,000 children were born in the US to parents lacking proof of legal residency. However, Cleveland.com columnist also notes that Mexican immigration to the US has declined since 2008, according to the same report.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, speaks to the media on the question of the Arizona Immigration Law which was partially struck down by Federal Judge Susan Bolton during a press conference at the State Senate Building in Phoenix, Arizona on July 28, 2010. UPI/Art Foxall Photo via Newscom

That constitutes about 8 percent of the 4.3 million US births during that year. These children, along with the children born to so-called birth tourists, are pejoratively known as "anchor babies," because of the fact that as American citizens, they can petition to have their close relatives enter the US legally once they turn 21.

 

Parsing the Meaning of the Amendment

As Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy recently explained to NPR, the 14th Amendment was originally adopted to extend citizenship to African Americans. Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration control law, and right-wing organizations such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, argue that US-born children of undocumented immigrants do not have citizenship rights because they are not "subject to [US] jurisdiction."  According to Kennedy, however, that phrase refers to a few narrow exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats. He added that case law supports the idea that children born here are citizens, even when their parents are ineligible for citizenship.

I confess that the focus on the "jurisdiction" phrase makes

  • 26
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Polish Mama on the Prairie 19 pts

Wow, this angers me to no end. America, you are a country founded on the seizure of lands from the natives who were here before you. You can't deny citizenship to people who are born here because of their parents status. You just can't.

That would basically mean that most people here in the US should not be legal citizens since just 3 or 4 generations ago, Europeans and others were coming over here illegally in *droves*. Therefore, you could comfortably say that at least 1/3 of all Europeans, etc. from that time are not citizens and that with this idea, the ripple effect would mean that NONE of their descendants could become US citizens.

I love America. I wholeheartedly do. I even taught my children the Pledge of Allegiance before the age of 3.

But to think something like this is ridiculous. The only people who have bloodright to have US citizenship are Native Americans. The rest, it's basically because otherwise we'd be a nation of over 3/4 illegals if we didn't grant US citizenship to anyone born in the US.

Graham is an overemotionally reactive narrowminded bigot. Short story. Get him out of office.

Kim Pearson 8 pts

A driver's license doesn't indicate citizenship status, although it does prove legal residency. However, I had to show my birth certificate to get my driver's license, so we're back at the starting gate, aren't we? And does this mean that we should all children will have to have motor vehicle IDs?

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Polish Mama on the Prairie 19 pts

Kim Pearson

I think we are all required to carry a state or federally issued id at all times, if I'm not mistaken. Irregardless of US citizenship status.

ebyrdstarr 5 pts

You are mistaken. You are required to have your driver's license when driving. Otherwise, we are all free to wander around outside without having our papers on us.

Maybelline 5 pts

I do not carry my birth certificate with me. Does my driver's license work?

I do hope that my rights as a legal citizen are priority over someone here illegally.

This is quite a sloppy issue. I'm interested in following the long process.

Kim Pearson 8 pts

The question is, what would the proof have to be? Now, a birth certificate is accepted. If that is no longer the criteria for citizenship, what replaces it?

As another commenter said earlier, there have been cases of American citizens being deported because they weren't carrying their proof of citizenship around. I dare say that most of us don't walk around with our birth certificates.

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Kim Pearson 8 pts

Interestingly, this BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Maybelline 5 pts

Kim: Don't I need to provide proof of my citizenship when I vote, apply for loans, apply for a driver's license? I don't know. But if my providing proof of legal citizenship in my country will help correct this out of control problem, I'll wear my proof proudly.

Maybelline 5 pts

Kim: This seems so simple to me and I hope that no one assumes that I'm simple minded. Parents in the US illegally would not enjoy the benefit of their US born child receiving citizenship. Simple. 100 years ago this was not an issue. There were no social services. I for one would be delighted to get social services cut back and under control. In fact, if social services were eliminated the borders could be wide open. But that's not realistic. The barn door is open now.

Please know that I do not reject immigration. In fact, I embrace LEGAL immigration.

ebyrdstarr 5 pts

There's already a US Supreme Court case that says we can't strip citizenship, so if we really wanted to go down that road, that would have to be part of any amendment. You're right that it's theoretically possible, but I just can't actually envision it happening.

Proof of citizenship is already a tricky issue for some and a change would only make it thornier. Sadly, there are lots of citizens who don't know they are and don't have proof. Additionally, it's not an uncommon thing for citizens to be deported as it stands now. Most people don't carry their birth certificates around and when ICE picks you up, it's pretty hard to contact the outside world to get the proof you need. And unfortunately a lot of people just agree to deportation out of desperation to get out of jail. Situations like that will only become more common. Plus, there would probably be some citizens who would be easily hoodwinked into believing the constitutional amendment did strip their citizenship.

All in all, it would be a big old can of worms that I would just as soon we not open. I don't think there's any real possibility that a constitutional amendment would get through. By design, it's really hard to amend the constitution and it just doesn't happen that often.

Preaching to the Choir ( http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/ )

Kim Pearson 8 pts

History, both in the US and elsewhere, says otherwise.

One of the reasons that the 14th Amendment was necessary is because of the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Scott had no rights, even if he were to be considered a free person and not a slave. We like to think that we are more enlightened than people were 160 years ago, but the experience of the Balkans, Rwanda and other multi-ethnic societies makes me aware of the need for care and vigilance. Pluralistic democracy is fragile.

Aside from that though, wouldn't it be necessary for everyone to prove their citizenship according to the new rules? Since the immigration reform law was passed in 1986, I've had to prove my citizenship every time I've changed jobs, for example. Or do we just say that a birth certificate is acceptable for people born before a certain date? That's what some countries, do, I know.

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

ebyrdstarr 5 pts

I don't know what a proposed amendment to the 14th would look like, but it wouldn't affect anyone retroactively. We can't strip citizenship from people who already have it.

Preaching to the Choir ( http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/ )

Polish Mama on the Prairie 19 pts

ebyrdstarr

You are right. We can't. So all the white people who came over here over the past several generations who took land that wasn't theirs to take and who came over here illegally would not be punished, would they? This is an attempt to selectively discriminate.

Kim Pearson 8 pts

You're right that most of the people who have spoken in favor of changing the 14th Amendment are referring to children of illegal immigrants. However the practice that Lindsey Graham expressed concern about, so-called birth tourism, is not illegal. So at least some of the people who would be denied citizenship would not be children of illegal immigrants.

I am curious, though, as to the criteria that you would substitute for citizenship. And would we all have to prove our citizenship under that new criteria?

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Kim Pearson 8 pts

It's good to have a lawyer's view on this. It's hard to see how the people who attach another meaning to the jurisdiction clause justify their point of view.

As for the matter of antipathy toward people of Mexican descent, a friend of mine who commented on Facebook that you don't see many Irish-looking people being asked to show their papers, although there are a BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Maybelline 5 pts

Jennifer:
I believe with your scenario in Ireland that you would be vacationing there legally.

The 14th amendment discussion would eliminate birthrights to children born to mothers/parents here ILLEGALLY.

Makes sense to me. Glad I'm not alone.

NotJustAnotherJennifer 7 pts

My mother is a legal immigrant. She has a green card. She has lived her 40+ years. If you are saying that children of LEGAL immigrants should not be granted citizenship, that sounds like crazy talk to me. (Though I might sound biased, my dad is American, so I'm good to go either way.)

However, I agree that there is a problem with granting citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL immigrants. I don't have a good answer, though. I mean, technically, if I'm on vacation in Ireland and go into preterm labor and deliver my child there, I think they are allowed dual citizenship to Ireland and the US (not sure on that one, but I think that's what I've heard). The problem is that there's no way to know the parents' intentions. Is it a way to scam the government and use their kids to get citizenship? Or are they trying to get their citizenship on their own and happen to have kids here in the process? I'm all about welcoming foreigners to our country, but I have a HUGE beef with the way things are working with immigration right now. (Too much to get into in a response. Will have to write a whole post!) Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Jennifer Barr is a working mom of two beautiful girls under the age of three which means she's sleep deprived but constantly kept on her toes! Most of those experiences are chronicled on her blog, ( http://midwestmomments.blogspot.com/ )

ebyrdstarr 5 pts

An interesting point that, to me, has gone overlooked in all of the discussion about birthright citizenship is this: one of the main motivations behind the citizenship clause was to prevent states from deciding who could and could not be citizens based on animus towards a particular group. Of course we all know that former slaves and their children were the main focus. During the ratification discussions, there was also a lot of concern about all the Chinese and Gypsy babies being citizens, but that was the losing side. The winning side didn't want that kind of racial or ethnic dislike to be a factor in citizenship. I don't think anyone can honestly say antipathy towards "Mexicans" isn't playing some part in this new movement. The citizenship clause was intended, at least in part, to prevent that kind of antipathy from affecting our laws.

And Kim, as a lawyer, I think your understanding of the jurisdiction part of the citizenship clause is correct.

Preaching to the Choir ( http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/ )

Kim Pearson 8 pts

I can't help but wonder how far some of these things will go, and there is always the danger that an extreme response will harm citizens as well. This becomes especially worrisome when we get into the national security issues. Also, some of the people arguing for more restrictive immigration policies do want to see changes in other areas, such as civil rights laws.

The bottom line is that these debates are about what we believe it means to be American, and who has the right to participate fully in the body politic. Countries that don't have birthright citizenship sometimes have restrictions based on criteria that most of us find troublesome, such as ethnicity, as BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Kim Pearson 8 pts

You raise a number of troubling issues. How do you think they are connected, and what do you think we, as citizens, can do?

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Kim Pearson 8 pts

I've had conversations with legal immigrants who also resent those who come here without going through the legal channels. They figure that they followed the rules, why shouldn't others? I think they also worry that they and their children are being stigmatized by the negative perceptions of people who are here without legal status.

At the same time, I know people whose fathers came here decades ago from countries that weren't high on the US quota list at that time. One of them was deported, leaving a wife and children to struggle in poverty. He got back here decades later (legally, I assume), but he couldn't be there when his children needed him most.

When you look at the stories of the real people affected by these policies, there is plenty of heartbreak on all sides. Hypersensitivity is perfectly understandable.

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Melissa Ford 38 pts

I think you hit it on the nail here: "the idea has been put on the table at a time when economic anxiety is rife and anti-immigrant sentiment is widespread. If history is any guide, this could lead to even more restrictive proposals, and even more contentious debate about the true nature of the problem." I do think we're going to go through a period of time where more restrictive proposals are floated.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

Maybelline 5 pts

My apologies. I made assumptions that were unwarranted. Reading "anti-immigrant" rather than "anti illegal immigrant" or something similar leads me to a quick conclusion.

As a daughter of a legal immigrant, I am hypersensitive to the entire illegal immigration topic. Always have been.

cleoking1305 5 pts

Illegal immigration has been a problem for a very long time.It was not until the economy started to decline that people want to start the blame game. Why is it that Americans start pointing the finger when their backs are against the wall? Everyone wants to NOW be concerned about where their tax dollars are going, but in all truth and honesty NO ONE knows for sure where their tax dollars are going. Americans have been paying for illegal immigrants since before the 1990's.
We also pay the Russians $50 million dollars to send each American astronaut into space. We pay Afghan villagers to leave the Taliban to only have them SWITCH back to the Taliban side and kill American soldiers. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, but I say it's too late to really do anything about it. A $600 million dollar wall isn't going to do anything, nor will changing the Constitution. If American politicians can change the 14th amendment, why not change the part about freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and freedom of the press? Has anyone actually sat down and THOUGHT about what is REALLY happening here? No, because everyone is blaming everything on illegal immigrants.

Kim Pearson 8 pts

Maybelline,

Thanks for commenting. Where did I say or imply that "conservatives" don't support immigration? In fact, the elements of the piece that focus on the current controversy (as opposed to historical perspective) describe a disagreement among conservatives who favor restrictive immigration policies.

I'm not sure that the illegal/legal distinction completely applies here. Lindsey Graham's complaint about birth tourism is not that it's illegal. Presumably, people who can spend $45,000 on a two-month hotel stay are traveling on a legal visa. His complaint was that it cheapened the meaning of citizenship.

The question of what undocumented aliens cost the US is another issue entirely, which I did not attempt to address in my post. I do appreciate that it is an important point of debate, and a very serious issue.

My goal was to provide some historical context to the discussion of the validity and continued relevance of this part of the 14th Amendment.

Thanks again for your comment.

Sincerely,
Kim

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Maybelline 5 pts

Please distinguish between "illegal" and "legal" immigration. Your implication that conservatives do not support immigration is distorted. The frustration with illegal immigration comes mostly from the burden on not only social services but infrustructure, courts, air, water, etc.