Advocates of a stabilized U.S. population recently received an endorsement from three unlikely sources.
Senators John Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, Republican proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, all spoke out against birthright citizenship. The practice allows children born on U.S. soil to become automatic citizens regardless of the immigration status of their mother.
McConnell wants to hold Congressional hearings on whether the policy commonly referred to as “anchor babies,” is sustainable.
Kyl, the Senate Republican Whip, supports McConnell’s suggestion that birthright citizenship be reviewed. Citing the costs illegal aliens generate for state governments who must pay for their education and health care, Kyl during a CBS Face the Nation interview said: “The question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?”
But Graham, referring to America’s bursting population, best summed up the birthright citizenship folly by calling it “a mistake.”
Said Graham: “People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.’ To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”
“I’m a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don’t want 20 million more [immigrants] 20 years from now,” concluded Graham.
In the House, Representative Lamar Smith leads the charge behind H.R. 1868, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 that former Congressman Nathan Deal introduced.
Smith has long argued, correctly, that granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil is a misinterpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
And Smith is right. Congress willfully ignores the 14th Amendment’s first sentence that 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.”
An illegal alien from Mexico, for example, is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States but of Mexico.
The new “American,” while only one person, opens the door for many others who could be added to the U.S. population.
The U.S.-born child becomes an American anchor that allows his parents and minor siblings to remain. Eventually, as a result of chain migration, his grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and all of their children can legally follow. One anchor baby may result in 50 new residents.
The newborn, whose mother may have come to the United States last week, is a citizen as fully as I who was born in California more than six decades ago and has paid taxes for more than half a century.
Since the estimates of illegal immigrants living in the United States range from 12 million to 38 million and the exact number eludes even the Census Bureau, it’s hard to calculate how many children (and automatic citizens) are born each year. But unless the gift of citizenship is abolished, many millions more will take advantage of it.
That birthright citizenship, and its long term consequences, have Congress’ attention is encouraging to environmentally concerned Americans. Congress has finally caught up with more progressive nations.
Over the past 25 years, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and France, among other countries, have modified jus soli (place of birth determines citizenship status).
Most countries have added to their birthright citizenship requirement that at least one parent be a legal resident or that a parent has lived a minimum number of years in the country of birth.
On its face, birthright citizenship is absurd and, as Graham pointed out, an easy target for abuse. Yet Congress has willfully refused to honestly confront it—until now. Here’s an example of what’s at stake. People often ask me how long I have advocated for population stabilization and sensible immigration laws.
Sometimes I answer: “More than 25 years.” Usually I reply: “More than 50 million people ago.”
—
Joe Guzzardi has written editorial columns - mostly about immigration and related social issues - since 1990. He is a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization, CAPSweb.org.
allamer posted at 10:27 pm on Mon, Aug 30, 2010.
If a Canadian woman arranges to give birth in a U.S. hospital, is her baby an American citizen? When she goes home to Canada can she take the baby with her? Will the child have to apply for Canadian citizenship? If the woman came here illegally, would that make a difference?
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:27 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
Well stated and factually correct.....
CooperG posted at 7:41 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
First of all, Guzzardi's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is nonsense. "Not under the jurisdiction" refers to the L-A-W-S of the United States. Diplomats are immune from U.S. laws. Immigrants are not. If they were immune, no one, not even Joe Arpaio, could arrest them. But, as we all know, they CAN be arrested. That means they are "under the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. This means anyone who is not family of a diplomat becomes a U.S. citizen at birth.
Second, comparing an infant to someone who has already lived a life "and paid taxes" is asinine. As if the child who is a citizen won't pay taxes? As if they won't serve in the military? As if they won't start businesses?
Thirdly, few Canadian woman are going to come to the U.S. to have a baby on purpose. Why would they? Here, they have to pay commercial rates for the birth, whereas in Canada, it's covered by their health care plan. What incentive is there? Do you really think vast majorities of Canadians see any benefit to having U.S. citizen children when the social services there are so much better than those in the U.S.? What's the matter with you people?
Finally, if the gasbags who argue for this change would bother to fix the immigration problem, this "birthright citizenship" argument would go away. But why make the easy fix when the goal is to blow up the Constitution.
Accuracy posted at 9:14 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
Born in the U.S.A.
Joe Guzzardi is saying that he does not approve of automatic citizenship.
Some congressmen want to review part of the Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on American soil.
Any effort to repeal what's known as "birthright citizenship" faces a big obstacle: The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
But despite the request to questions automatic citizenship, over the years the Constitution has repeatedly been held to confer automatic American citizenship on anyone born in the USA.
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in the country whose children are U.S. citizens.
cdawg66 posted at 10:32 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
Cooper,
How to you propose to "fix the immigration problem" without correcting the misaligned incentives that give people reason to immigrate illegally?
Rich posted at 10:27 pm on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
"An illegal alien from Mexico, for example, is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States but of Mexico."
This statement is moronic.
If it were true then "illegal" wouldn't be what you'd call them. It isn't against Mexican law for them to cross the border. They are perfectly legal if the statement is true. In fact they could commit any crime they felt like committing and it wouldn't even be a crime. They'd be like a diplomat "immune" to our laws, our jurisdiction, not subject to American courts. The only way they could be arrested would be if they broke Mexican law on Mexican soil.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Sep 1, 2010.
CooperG: If Canada's health cares so great, why aren't US citizens going there for there child's birth?
The POINT is that the law was meant to give X-slaves rights. Not handle millions of CRIMINAL FOREIGN INVADERS. Laws can/are changed or updated. This one should be if it gives citizenship to kids of millions of CRIMINALS. There should be NO REWARD for breaking the law....