Amending 14
You've heard the talk. The GOP is pushing the idea of revisiting and clarifying the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. This is the amendment that is generally accepted as granting citizenship to anyone physically born in the United States. It also has provisions dealing with due process and equal protection under the law, and other considerations that were important in post-civil war America.
The issue, of course, are what is termed the "anchor babies" - the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States. The argument goes that the child, being a citizen, then anchors the immediate family into residence in the country - sort of a backdoor amnesty.
The GOP sees a winner in re-editing the wording of section 1:
"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The GOP would like to clarify that children born in the United States to non-citizens will no longer be granted automatic American citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was drawn and ratified during the Reconstruction period following the civil war. Though slavery had been outlawed, many of the formerly Confederate states found ways to maintain the slavery status quo through denial of citizenship to the former slaves. New laws were created restricting access and participation in many aspects of what one would expect a "normal life" to consist of.
The Federal government took action by way of this amendment to address these issues. The 14th Amendment is the Federal trump card. Once ratified, it settled a long standing debate on who was entitled to the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration. It required the individual states to recognize all rights granted in the Constitution, and to apply them to all citizens equally. The former slaves were granted citizenship, and all was well after that. Congress has spoken.
Obviously not. It was among the first of steps in a journey that we continue to this day. Great progress has been made, but there are still ignorant people maintaining racist attitudes in all of the cultural subdivisions of America. White, black, brown, yellow. Christian, Jew, Muslim. Every group has it's haters. The progress is seen in the general acceptance of most people on an individual basis.
The issue gets murkier as history progresses. As states were added to the Union, the residents of those states and territories were granted citizenship. It was just easier that way.
The "anchor baby" issue wasn't an issue because travel was the province of the wealthy, and ways to get around were limited. Most people once settled, never traveled much further than the closest city. Many never left their village. When the southwestern states were added, the only change noticed on the street was the change of flag. Life went on as it normally would.
The United States went on until 1898 before the question of citizenship by birth to the child of a foreign national was first addressed. In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court found for Mr. Wong. Wong was born in San Francisco to parents who immigrated from China, but did not become American citizens. They returned to China in 1890, and were joined by Wong. When he returned to the United States he was granted entry on the grounds that he was a native born citizen. In a subsequent trip on his return from China, he was denied entry on the grounds that his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China, and therefore being a child of Chinese citizens he was also a Chinese citizen.
The change in entry status was due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which allowed Chinese nationals living in the United States to stay but to be ineligible for citizenship, and severely limited any new Chinese from immigrating the the US. Generally if a legal Chinese resident went back to China, they were denied re-entry into the US.
The issue, as presented to the Court, was whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could be constitutionally denied US citizenship and excluded from the country. The decision in favor of Mr. Wong was 6- 2.
The basis for the decision was interpreted in the common law tradition that there were only two accepted reasons for denial of citizenship at birth. The first is that the child was born to foreign diplomats. The second is that a child is born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Court held that neither of these conditions applied to Wong.
The Court further held that though Wong was of Chinese descent, the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply, because as a natural born citizen, and act of Congress does not trump the Constitution. The law must be "construed and executed in subordination to it's (the Constitution's) provisions."
Fast forward to today. Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) is leading the charge on Amending 14. Under Section 5 of the Amendment, power is specifically given to Congress "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." TPP is of the opinion that this is a dog of an issue, and if Rep. Boehner insists on poking at it, it will turn around and bite him in what President Obama is famous for wanting to kick.
Any proposed legislation will be interpreted under the set precedent by the Supreme Court for the Wong decision. Barring the two recognized exceptions, there is no Constitutional basis for denying citizenship to a person born here. No one can argue that the "anchor babies" are born to Diplomats. The argument that they are born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of America might be made, but does anyone really want to approach the issue from that direction? As upset as people may be with the illegal immigration situation, that is not an argument that will resonate with the majority of the voting public. Any legislation crafted would need to accommodate the factors that applied to Wong.
With legislation being a complicated route, Constitutional amendment is the other course of action left. To literally Amend 14. Or Repeal and Replace. The Constitution is not an easy thing to tinker with. It was deliberately designed to be that way. Ask the supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment, or an amendment to ban the desecration of the flag how quick and painless a process this route would be. Additionally, the vast majority of Amendments deal with expanding freedom and liberty to the people. The only one that specifically took rights away was Amendment 18 (Prohibition) which was eventually repealed. We don't see this as a winning strategy.
Common Sense Dictates
There are a lot of ways to address this without Amending 14. Legislation can be enacted which will recognize the children of foreign nationals born here as citizens of their parent's country. That is how most nations handle the issue. It falls within the authority granted to Congress to define citizenship, and qualifications for citizenship. Going from that direction would have a better chance of passing Supreme Court muster.
Another approach is to leave it alone and apply the standard of Mr. Wong. As an adult, he claimed his citizenship. In the case of all children born to foreign nationals on US soil, they will remain citizens of their parents country, and return with their parents to that home country. Upon reaching adulthood they can return to the United States and claim their citizenship if they want it.
All of this hue and cry is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the real issue, which is securing the border and what to do with our illegal immigrant population. Anchor babies are not the problem. The problem is a porous border, and a lack of incentive by anyone to enforce existing law.
As we have previously stated,there is a complicit agreement between many powerful forces that the status quo or amnesty is the best result. Democrats see future Democratic voters. Republicans see a cheap labor supply for their generous supporters in agribusiness, construction and manufacturing sectors. The union movement, flagging in these later years sees a new supply of dues paying members. The Roman Catholic Church, beset by scandal, sees a new way to fill the pews and the collection baskets. The list goes on and on.
Revisiting the 14th amendment is nothing more than a political smokescreen for candidates to appear engaged in resolving the issue, but who in fact like things just the way they are. It is a herring of the reddest sort. It is yet another sign that the ruling class does not understand or care what the electorate are looking for in the way of solutions. Common sense dictates that we should cast our votes on candidates who have a constructive plan rather than a gimmick. Unfortunately there are not many of those around. We as a people, need to make our voices heard and demand better of those who seek to represent us. None of the challenges facing our country will be effectively dealt with until our elected representatives understand that they work for us, not the other way around. Let us make that our clear message.
RLB
Categories: Constitutional Issues, political leadership, Partisan Politics
Tags: immigration historical perspective political leadership
Well, at least you're not denying that it's an issue. Once an anchor baby is dropped, all of the social programs become available for the actual citizen in the family. That's health care, welfare, food stamps and all of the other things that make it possible for the illegals to survive while picking fruit or working in sweatshops for a buck an hour. It adds up to the tune of $40 billion per year in California alone. The issue needs to be addressed.
Reply to this
Okay, so the mechanics of doing it will be rough, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix this problem. Besides the costs, American citizenship is a real draw as a opportunity for anyone who can get across the border. I'm not against immigration. People just need to follow the process, and show a desire to be a citizen, not just take the benefits. An anchor baby is a shoe in the door for any illegal immigrant to just stay.
Reply to this
It's not just Mexicans who come here to get their children American citizenship. Canadians, Brits, and a lot of other friendly and not so friendly countries value what an American passport can do for you. It's economic, but political as well. America is still the big dog. There is prestige and opportunity that comes with American citizenship.
Reply to this
I'm not sure that I feel good about messing with a fundamental right that goes back way beyond our Constitution. According to English Common Law, which goes back a thousand years, you are a citizen of the country that you are born into. The only exceptions are the ones used by the Supreme Court in Wong. No we are a little different as a nation. There is no American in the way that there is a Frenchman or a German. We have all come here at one point or another, and have always recognized that the children of immigrants born here are automatic citizens. The Wong decision was a correction of a racist law excluding Chinese immigration. It did not strike down the racist law, but it did say that you could not apply it to a native born citizen, regardless of ancestry. Illegal immigration is a problem, and anchor babies are an issue. I think the better way to go would be to address border security and leave birthright citizenship alone.
Reply to this
I think we should leave automatic citizenship alone. We might be one of the few countries that does it, but it's what makes us America. All of us have our heritage someplace else. There were no immigration laws for a long time in this country. People came because of the opportunity. It's always been that if you were born here you were a citizen. It should stay that way.
Reply to this
We are the only country that does automatic citizenship if you are born here. The ONLY one. I know this is the land of opportunity, but there comes a time when you need to enforce some rules and let people in with a little screening. Maybe it would be a good idea to see if the person coming in wants to be productive and learn the language. We have enough of the type that move here for the benefits and don't want to actually become American.
Reply to this
Something needs to be done. It's like we literally give away the country now. There used to be laws that were enforced. When my grandparents came over, they needed to learn English, support themselves and take a test to get citizenship. The test was written in ENGLISH ONLY. If you want to live here, great. Become an American. Use our language and celebrate our traditions and way of life. If you want to continue on the way it was back in the old country, STAY THERE! We don't want to do it your way, you came here. Do it our way.
Reply to this
Gotta agree that this is just a dog and pony show. Messing with the 14th Amendment has less chance of flying than full amnesty for the illegals. This is just more being stuck on stupid intead of proposing real ideas and plans. I'm starting to wonder if the Republicans will pull off a big win in November, or just tank the rest of the way. We need a new Gingrich to win. Boehner just doesn't have it.
Reply to this
I thinkBoehner is insane. With all of the real issues - economy, war, rolling back Obamacare - he pulls out this stinker. How to sink 435 congressional campaigns all at once. He needs to sit down and shut up. Or join Kucinich in the Democrat party.
Reply to this
The righties are jumping onto this bandwagon, but it looks to be more the ones that are a little more extreme than most. I don't see this as a big win for the GOP. It just looks like pandering to the Minutemen.
Reply to this
I wouldn't say people favoring reeling back the free citizenship to anyone who is here for however long or short, or legally or not is an extreme idea. If you're born in Mexico, you don't get automatic citizenship. Nor France, Saudi Arabia or any other country that I can think of. Most are very restrictive on who gets to be a citizen, and in reality, most countries are very restrictive in the immigrants legally there. I'm not sure that I agree with how the issue is being framed, but it is a legitimate issue.
Reply to this
No one would doubt my conservative cred, but I can't believe anyone thinks this will play well out in real America. I have to hope it's just going out there to look like a plan of action when they have none. It's the worst possible choice. Carlos said it before. We have the bad economy, poor handling of the wars, the oil spill - it's a laundry list. Now Boehner is going off like the crazy old man with a shotgun scaring people. It's a bad idea, and worse, it's a horrible sound bite. It's the economy, stupid.
Reply to this
Is there any actual plan attached to this idea? If there is I haven't heard it. Sounds like a trial balloon. I, like most people, want to see the illegal immigration problem fixed but I don't see how this is supposed to work. Is this a big game of tag and the baby is supposed to be home base? How is ths supposed to work in with securing the border - especially against those drug gangs invading the SW states? What are they proposing we do with the illegals already here. I'm not hearing anything other than "no amnesty" and now "no citizenshjp". Ok, I get it, but what's the plan???
Reply to this
I thought this was going to promote te idea of repealing the 14th or something. I was surprised and pleased. Of course it seems a little odd to be on the same side of this as some of you guys who I know are to the right of Reagan. This whole thing just comes off like the worst possible caricature of the Tea Party. Since I know Tea Partiers, I want you to know that what I mean by that is it makes you guys look bad. They call it silly season for a reason.
Reply to this
So all of this rests on a Supreme Court decision that's over 100 years old. Are the Republicans expecting the Supreme Court to reverse themselves? Major brain fart.
Reply to this
I think this is political suicide for the Republicans. It's one thing to put up a wall, it's another to do something that goes against the traditions of America. Boehner is tone deaf.
Reply to this
No one should get the reward of American citizenship through the illegal act of being here without permission. It's stealing. And I know the child isn't the one stealing it, but the parent is. And the reason is to stay here. We get all weak-kneed about separating the child from the parent. Here's an idea - no citizenship and they both can go back to where they came from.
Reply to this
The Iroquois, Sioux, Seminole, Apache and Navajo people would agree with you wholeheartedly. Moron.
Reply to this
Hey, hey - play nice. I'm sure that you're right that the native Americans regret the open border policy. Another fun fact that will drive you crazy - all of the tribes are specifically excluded from the 14th Amendment. Look at how quickly this story is going away. It's as if the Republicans realized how badly this was playing out, so they switched to the mosque at Ground Zero. I'm agreeing with the article. The sound bites are getting annoying. The elections are less than 3 months away and there is no Republican plan out there. "Wow, those guys messed up" is not a campaign slogan.
Reply to this
The two parties are just the two sides of the same coin. Repubican or Democrat, they are only interested in staying in Washington for as long as they can. Soundbites have replaced actual positions, and the mre vague the sound bite the better. Might as well be one party rule.
Reply to this
I have to disagree with you tooba. there has never been a starker contrast between the two parties. That's why, for the most part Obama has been driving his programs without a single Republican vote. The choice is very clear - Democrat give us more of the same, Republicans will give us our liberty back.
Reply to this
You want your liberty back? Exactly which one of Obama's gulags are you locked up in? Are you being waterboarded? Oh, no wait! That would have been Bush.
Reply to this
This is what I mean. Terryb, you could have come at me with facts and figures and a factual message about why you liberals should remain in power. You can't so you do what Obama does and blame Bush. This is what my positive message is. Republicans will give me control over my medical decisions - not some bureaucrat. There will not be yearly inspections of my home so that the government can check out what kind of lightbulbs that I use or what the thermostat is set to (Cap & Trade - it's in there). GM and Chrysler will become private companies again, though GM will probably die with the UAW being the biggest shareholder. Taxes will remain at current levels rather than getting jacked up in January when the Bush tax cuts expire. We will get an economic policy that makes sense to small business that will allow for job growth, not just more extensions to unemployment. That's the short list - let me know if you want more.
Reply to this
Even if you were to get the majority, Obama would still have to go along with your ideas.
Reply to this
Let's do your math. If the Republicans get the majority that would mean a good number of Democrats would be turned out of office in favor of Republicans. That would mean that more people voted against the policies of Obama than for them. That would translate out to more people being against Obama's policies than for them (which is the case in flyover country, Obama is just a little hard of hearing - he's down to 41% approval in Rasmussen today). Continuing his current policies when the voters have spoken loudly against them would not bode well for 2012. He either plays nice or is a one-termer.
Reply to this
I can't believe that this even made it to trial balloon stage. What a loser of a position to take.
Reply to this