GOP Playing with Dynamite on ‘Anchor Baby’ Issue
The idea of denying citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants remains popular with right-wing voters, and so there will always be some conservative Republican willing to use it a chew toy for the sake of a few votes. They even go so far as trying to construct elaborate arguments to get around the obvious unconstitutionality of such a change.
It helps if you were sleeping in high school civics when the teacher covered the 14th Amendment:
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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That wording is pretty cut and dried. Opponents of birthright citizenship sometimes argue that illegal immigrants aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But their U.S.-born children are, and that’s what the amendment refers to.
It’s also the law of the land, which makes it all the more curious that a crowd that claims to cherish the concept of law and order would be, when it suits their purposes, so quick to ignore it.
The truth is, there are no anchor babies. The real anchor is a job, the kind gladly provided by U.S. employers who thumb their noses at federal law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Arizona lawmakers could go after that group, and it might actually make a dent in the illegal immigration problem. But what fun would that be? Employers have the resources and voting privileges to fight back. Tangling with them comes at a price.
By comparison, the target they have in mind now is child’s play.
Yes my very racist friend it is very cut and dry…. illegal aliens born in the US are NOT citizens period…
Maybe you should read the part “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof(the US)” illegal aliens are no different then any other invading army… They are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US.
Next you have Wong kim Ark which settled this matter beyond any doubt.
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”
Note a few things here. First illegal aliens are not legally able to hold DOMICILE inside the US… they are not able to legally carry on business inside the US, thus they’re children are not US Citizen. Now add in a special case for mexicans because the mexican government has turned illegal aliens into a “diplomatic/official capacity” they are in no way possible for them to be US Citizens.
Anyway you cut it illegal aliens can not give birth to US citizens. In the case of mexican illegal aliens they can and should be classed as an invading army and the as such have zero legal rights to even challenge the issue.
Children of “illegal aliens” are not automatically citizens of the U.S. and should not be. Many childen born to illegals are alrady receiving medical aid and education, thanks to the taxpayers of this country, even tho’ they may not be able to afford the same for their own children.
Mr. Navarrette:
Your wrong in claiming that the real anchor is a job. As a former California resident, I often heard and read about illegal immigrants using their US born baby as a means of accessing the various California social welfare entitlements.
I was told that many illegal immigrant mothers, soon after delivery of their baby, started filling out welfare application forms.
As for the 14th Amendment it was largly the result of the need for providing US citizenship to the freed slaves. As commendable and necessary the 14th was, I’ve read that there are some legal scholars that have opined as to it being perfectly reasonable that a credible challenge to the 14th is doable with respect to automatic citizenship for babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.
I notice your Hispanic surname; and I have to conclude methinks that your more than a bit biased concerning illegal immigrants.
Larry
Expat in Warsaw, Poland
The children of UN delegates born in the USA are NOT considered US citizens and they are here legally, so please tell me why the children of ILLEGAL aliens should be granted the right of US citizenship. The constitution is being abused allowing these anchor babies.
The 14th amendment specifies that children must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In other words, the children of diplomats aren’t subject to US law so they can’t be US citizens. Obviously illegal immigrants have a different legal status, I’m not saying their children should be citizens though, just answering your question.
“…subject to the jurisdiction of…” has been taken to mean that they have sworn allegiance to, or are in-country pursuent to the laws of, the United States.
Illegal aliens, and their off-spring, do not comply with either of these provisions.
The children of diplomats posted to the United States, are here under the laws of their originating (Mother) country, and are only subject to U.S. laws as allowed by International Conventions regulating diplomats (Diplomatic Immunity).
The notion that anything issuing forth from the loins of an illegal immigrant receives automatic citizenship is asinine. It’s also asinine for you to suggest that this legal oddity is not used strategically by trespassers. The birthright law was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and you know it. Republicans would be right to go after this issue in any way they can. You call it “playing with dynamite” because you promulgate the tired old narrative that they’re going to risk losing that mythical “Hispanic vote”. Here’s an even better idea! The Republicans should just become Democrats, then they’d -really- attract the Hispanic vote! Nope, it’s time to start protecting America not only as a physical entity but also the cultural institutions that made it what it is, and neither of these concerns are served by kowtowing to identity politics.
Exactly! Well said.
Thank you. We are NOT afraid to talk about race in this country, Holder notwithstanding.
Actually, the issue here is not race. It does not matter what race an American citizen is, as long as he or she assimilates into American culture, brings a skill and does not go on welfare, knows American history and treasures American exceptionalism, thus preserving the cultural integrity of America for future generations.
Is that too much to ask of a citizen? There is solid legal ground to get this anchor baby discussion moving forward.
So does that necessarily mean we have to extend citizenship to the parents? You want the letter of the law followed? Fine. The kid is a citizen. The parents get deported. They can take their little squirts or give them up for adoption. We need more diversity welfare recipients like we need more liberal journalists.
I would hire you as an immigration judge if I had the power.
Joe, that is exactly the solution. The kid has citizenship, but that does not mean the relatives do. Up to them to figure out how to deal with the problem, not us. Put the kid in an orphanage, take him home, or whatever, the relatives leave.
If the parents have no legal standing (here illegally) then the child has no legal standing. It is no different than if they had brought a child with them — I believe the constitution can be interpreted / understood to assumed the parents have a legal status (permission to be here) when the child was born. The States are not obligated to give the child legal status by providing a birth certificate.
In 1998 my LEGAL IMMIGRANT friends living Lower Eastside NYC were thrown out of the United States of America- by a Democrat president- because my friend’s sponsor had a tax problem.
My friends-she is Danish, he is Italian-had a child born on American soil but that did not matter!
All the Democrat president had to do to throw my LEGAL IMMIGRANT friends out of the country was SEND A LETTER!
Subsequently; my friends divorced and year later-FAMILY TORN APART!
BUT much like illegal slave-trade supporting The Catholic Church, you did not care Mr Ruben Navarrette Jr. because all you see is ‘Latino’ which make you a racist who is helping to balkanize America into tribal feudalism!
Fed up with your Journo-listed journalism.
The fourteenth amendment was not written with the current situation in mind. Supporters of the anchor baby idea know this and just don’t care that it is being abused. It’s odd to hear the snark of someone accuse others of sleeping through high school civics; at least they were in a high school and in a high school civics class, unlike illegal aliens.
“It’s odd to hear the snark…” Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Very, very snarky this whole article. Nobody likes a good rant or a great pan more than me. Nobody. John Simon is still my #1 personal hero. But, cripes, I can’t stand snark.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
That’s where you’re wrong Rubin…..illegals are NOT subject to our jurisdiction as ILLEGALS! They are subjects of a foreign entity who have entered the US under false, illegal pretenses.
Thus…we have every right to deny them citizenship. Hell…you want to actually reward breaking the law?
I see a lot of activist judges on this site. The constitution is clear. If we want to talk about context lets talk about the context the second amendment was written in, post revolutionary war and the British was still a threat. Anyway, you have no legal understanding of jurisdiction whatsoever. I would go as far as to say you have no legal understanding of anything. Jurisdiction is based on contact, if the person is in our country they are under our jurisdiction. The wording is so clear. If the writers wanted it to only pertain to slaves they would been more specific. It is part of our constitution. You all claim to want to follow the constitution but you try and pervert it when you disagree with the text. Stop being so liberal.
Where do you get the idea that people here are activist judges? People here want to remedy this by Constitutional amendment. That’s the opposite of judicial activism.
There’s logic to your argument but the doctrine of original intent is the better one for figuring out what the 14th Amendment does and doesn’t do.
Option A: The drafters and ratifiers were aware of the sparsely populated territory to the south and the great expense, dangers and difficulties of travel by sea or by land from the south and so proceeded without the slightest concern for, attention to, or apprehension of travelers from the south entering the country and then giving birth to babies while subject to the laws of the U.S. and its states and territories. They only had in mind people who were already here.
Option B: They not only had in mind people who were already here but also foresaw a situation where millions upon millions of non-whites and non-Christians from very different cultures and nations would pour across our southern borders contrary to our laws and when they gave birth the amendment was specifically calculated to ensure that the babies would acquire citizenship and be able to participate in the economy and political processes of the Nation.
Clearly, the interpretation you favor is based on Option B which is an absurd interpretation requiring that you believe the drafters and ratifiers of old fully intended to grant the power of conferring citizenship on any person who in her absolute, untrammeled discretion decided she should travel to the U.S. The U.S. had an intricate web of federal and state constitutions and statutes, plus municipal charters and ordinances and court decisions to beat the band — all evidencing a fascination with and devotion to the concept of ordered liberty with laws made by the people’s representatives chosen in free and open elections. But on this critical issue of citizenship, a foreigner could opt for her child just by showing up and delivering.
Original intent helps in another way. Cedar hill (next comment) is right that it was intended to apply to slaves, else why go to the trouble of amending the Constitution with this specific language? Was there a widespread effort by whites to deny citizenship to other whites in the land around that time? Let’s see, who ELSE might have had a problem being fully accepted as full citizens after the War Between the States in some of the states, say, the states of the Confederacy? Just to choose a subgroup of states at random, of course. (I don’t mean that as sarcastically as it may sound.)
(It think former CSA troops had to swear allegiance to the Union but I don’t know that they were without citizenship until they did.)
What was understood by the people who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment has a lot to do with how it should be interpreted. The amendment could have been made more specific but obviously people didn’t think it was necessary. Ditto, for the privileges and immunities clause therein, which is much, much more of an interpretation nightmare if you ask me. On its face, who in the world knows what those are? And I sure don’t know what they are now, though my learning on this point is . . . um, shallow. Not to put too fine a point on it.
The Constitution today does not mean what you apparently want it to mean in light of your values and today’s realities. It, and all laws, mean what the proponents of those authorities meant at the time. Otherwise we have a “living Constitution” which means that we don’t have a Constitution at all but just five or more pals who bat around ideas of how the country should be run. Over a latte and a fat free muffin snack, of course.
“That’s where you’re wrong Rubin…..illegals are NOT subject to our jurisdiction as ILLEGALS! They are subjects of a foreign entity who have entered the US under false, illegal pretenses.
Thus…we have every right to deny them citizenship. Hell…you want to actually reward breaking the law?”
Let’s say an illegal immigrant murders someone. Would you expect Mexico to investigate and prosecute the crime as you say these “illegals are not subject to our jurisdiction”? If that is the case, what recourse would the US have to prosecute? Heck, what gives us legal jurisdiction to even deport an illegal?
Does that give any US citizen the freedom to go and rob, rape and/or murder an illegal alien adult or child in your mind? Do you even think about the ramifications of saying people who are here illegally are not subject to our jurisdiction?
The “birth right” babies is an ancient rule in order to make sure former slaves were US citizens. It’s archaic. All modern nations have citizenship based on the nationality of the parent(s). That’s what we should have. It’s silly to allow a slave directed rule to survive decades after the last one that would have benefited is long dead.
At least modernize the law.
lets just throw out the constitution and modernize it, what we want today. Chief Standing Bear 1879 that trial has alot of interesting legal issues. he didn’t have US citizenship.
At issue is not necessarily Citizenship for these babies.. BUT the issue of keeping parents here on the dole while the child grows to maturity.
It might be a better idea, document the births, take DNA samples and DEPORT the child and parents UNTIL the child reaches legal age to BECOME A CITIZEN of the United States.
That child can then enter the United States and claim its citizenship AFTER they reach maturity.
What happens now… illegal immigrants are skirting the law… become a parent and STAY on the dole or working here in the United States… using the Anchor Baby as a ANCHOR themselves to be here in the United States.
This should APPLY to all immigrants.. you do not come here on Student Visas, or Visas… become a parent… and then you get to stay in the United States while the child grows up here in the United States.
With both the parents and the children being allowed to receive free medical, free education and free everything ‘cradle to the grave’ support from the taxpayers.
No other country allows this to happen in the Numbers that the US allows..
I would certainly support any law, fed or state, making anchor babies illegal. What other nation is stupid enough to offer citizenship to offspring of illegal aliens but the US? Name one. If we do not take serious measures soon to stem the tide of illegals running over our southern borders our culture & nation will be history. This has already happened in CA & it is just a matter of time till it expands to other states. Just how stupid do these illegal aliens think we are? Answer: very!
Bulgaricus, you are completely correct. The United States is the ONLY country in the world that grants citizenship to anyone who happens to be born here. As a former Ariznian I am so proud of Arizona for showing the guts to try and stop this immegration outrage. Also I predict Arizona will spank the DOJ (my former employer) when the SB1070 case is decided and in all three courts!
The real anchor is a job, the kind gladly provided by U.S. employers who thumb their noses at federal law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Thank for pointing out the prime culprit in this mess although I predict this post will largely be filled with people dumping 100% of the invective on the border crossers.
You are right in that the issue is the 14th. Why was it written? So that the children of ex-slaves, and the ex-slaves themselves (born in the US) could not be denied their rights by those seeking to make an end run around the implications of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War. Was it needed for that purpose? Absolutely!
All those people’s descendants are covered today, as there are now many generations with unquestionable, legal citizenship. Birthright citizenship is not some global human right, and it’s about time we took a long, hard look at whether or not we should still have such a thing.
A simple amendment to the amendment is in order: limit birthright citizenship to children born of legal citizens and children born in the US to parents who later become legal citizens. There. Done. Everybody’s happy except the criminals and race baiters.
And the notion that “anchor babies” aren’t used to cement an illegal migration and give it an air of legitimacy (possibly paving the way for the rest of the family to boot) is preposterous.
It was in the 1980′s that either Time or Newsweek ran this article about ‘anchor babies’. It talked about a Mexican girl waiting until she was in labor to walk across the border into an American emergency room to have her child there. It went on to talk about the cost to the American taxpayer (along with other types of statistics) of this type of action on the part of the mother. I cannot remember the slant of the article but I do remember coming away from the article thinking that this type of behavior was not a good thing for the United States.
This article from almost 30 years ago left a lasting impression on me. I do find it funny that one of the arguments made in this article is that the ‘natural born’ provision is in the constitution so that makes it right. However, whenever the left thinks that the constitution is wrong we hear the argument that the constitution is a living breathing document that can be changed by some judge’s opinion on what he or she thinks that it is. The Equal Protection clause was written back in the late 1800′s following the civil war and one of the concerns of the U.S. was to populate this country-and we did not have a welfare program. This provision certainly made sense then.
I believe that we are the only country (there may be a couple more but not many) that has a provision for those born on American soil which makes them citizens. This does not happen in Mexico or France. If an American citizen has a child in one of these countries the baby does not get a Mexican or French passport. No, he or she is a citizen of the country from where his parents were born i.e. the United States. So to paint these politicians as ‘morally bankrupt’ or nativist or just plain ole’ mean is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that illegal immigrants cost this country millions and we do not make it back. We are in an economic recession with either slow or no recovery. We need to do something. When the media keeps telling us that we have 12 million illegals here and the crime that comes with them (and I do realize that it is not all of them) they become a target. I can almost guarantee that mama isn’t paying for these babies to be born in these american hospitals. No. We most likely are footing the bill.
Very well put Donnamarie – Ruben has tried to make a regular living arguing both ways here at PJM.
There is a specific reason why this issue is now comming up – and why Russell Pierce is leading the way – a state representitive here in AZ. And Ruben doesn’t like it one bit. For good reason.
Ruben points out that the issue never gained traction in the immigration debate from 2004-2006. I argue, as Rep Pierce has here in Arizona, that most if not all of the current divisiveness surrounding immigration is a direct result of the birthright citizenship conferred on the children of illegals since the ipso facto amnesties granted first by Ronald Reagan and later by George Bush (I) in the late 80′s and early 90′s.
Donnamarie makes the same point referrencing the first time she read about this as well. It is the cumulative effect of the past thirty years; an effect that has allowed advocates like Ruben to make the emotional arguments to continue conferring special status on Latinos.
All we hear about here is how wrong we are in Arizona for SB 1070. And futher that the illegals fleeing our heavy-handed and probably illegal response are not heading back to drug war-torn Mexico or some other poverty stricken central or south american venue – but rather to other more hospitable states such as Cali or Illinois or PA. But why is this so?
In part it’s because of people like Ruben. Because illegals now openly march in the streets, with or without anchor babies at their side, demanding that the American people confure upon them, grant either by congressional law or executive order, citizenship.
The number one blunt instrument those who support amnesty for these illegals use on those who oppose them is that of FAMILY UNIFICATION. You can’t break up these families they cry; you can’t deport children or adults who came here as children to countries they rarely seen if ever even visited. It’s impractable and barbaric.
But once you get past this emotional plea – in hard economic times – and combat it with rational facts as well as objective arguments about the eventual time soon when we will again come out of hard economic times – it is neither impractable or barbaric.
What it requires is to stop holding our immigration policies hostage to the tribal wants and desires of Latino’s. Instead, this policy should be about skills, about how smart and how educated you are to thrive and create in a this brave new world economy, in short about WHAT YOU BRING TO THE TABLE. About how you are going to enjoy the privlage of being American – and how you being here are going to make us better and stronger – and extend American Exeptualism into the next century.
What Ruben and those of his ilk hate is that this debate is virtually over. There is nothing of value to America to continue importing third world poverty from our southern neighbors, no matter how they have grown addicted to the revenue they enjoy from the expats who earn here.
The same thing that Ruben is saying about the 14th ammendment he and his crowd have said about EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HERE IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. They said it about workplace sanctions. They said it about 287G and the crime sweeps. That the economy would collapse without the illegals? Sure there were a percentage of illegals allowed to crater in the credit bubble – but it was a very small percentage.
Arizona is suffering real boycotts and a lot of vitrolic punditry – but the issues are anything but settled right now. Ruben is always asserting dire consequences regarding ‘alienating’ Latino’s & Bla Bla Bla. That we have ‘woken the slumbering giant’ and there is some monolithic voting block waiting to unleash its wrath.
Well – there are plenty of legal latino’s here in Arizona who’ve yet to convert to the San Diego balkinization when it comes to what Ruben claims – either politically or economically. THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF THE CONERVATIVE CO-ILITION THAT PASSED PROPS STRIPPING ILLEGALS OF THE PRIVLAGES OF CITIZENSHIP – Whether it was bail (to stop catch and release), or welfare bennies, or voting rights.
We shall see if indeed the sky will fall and the earth will rise up. Until then, watch out illegals when it comes to birthright citizenship; past is no longer prologue.
Just because the Supreme Court set precident in the late ’80′s when it came to requiring that the children of illegals (whether born here or not) once here must be EDUCATED BY THE STATE THEY LIVE IN – doesn’t necessarily mean we will continue birthright citizenship.
That is why Ruben writes. Because he knows in this current environment advocates like him could lose this 2ND BIGGEST INCENTIVE FOR THOSE WHO COME HERE ILLEGALLY – NAMELY – TO BACKDOOR INTO CITIZENSHIP THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN.
Why did you use a ‘white’ baby in the anchor-baby image?
If you want a realistic depiction of Illegal Mexicans, just google ‘leech’ or ‘parasite’.
Look at MEXICAN laws for a clue. Do ‘they’ consider someone born on their soil an ‘instant’ Mexican? NO. Why are you here again?
Not so. Many and maybe most work hard and the problem is that there are too many at once and too many are poor. But I’m white and I see they work hard.
mexicans are white counter to what many racist mexican try to say to the otherwise… if fact i’m a bit shocked that a racist such as ruben put a white baby up expect he’s probably trying his best to duck and cover with the fact his last few pieces were so overtly racist.
The issue of anchor babies should be taken to the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the 14 Amendment. If Congress or the people disagree with the Supreme Court than the Constitution can be amended. One point of argument against anchor babies is that the purpose of Customs and Immigration is to allow the Country to reject any undesirable person or product. Until the person has passed Immigration they can be put back on an airplane or refused entry at the border. When a person sneaks into the Country leagally they are not here so they can’t legally give birth here.
Our liberal friends to the north in Canada have changed their law to refuse citizenship to the children of visitors and illegal aliens and no one is attacking Canada for defending it’s laws and national borders.
Although I agree it is a radioactive subject; I would like to note that I believe in most countries of the world the nationality of a newborn is considered to be the nationality of its mother not where he/she is born. Just a thought.
I’ve spoken with numerous Juris Doctor acquaintances on this issue and, Reuben, you have no idea what you’re speaking of. This amendment was solely and wholly intended to nsturalize all former slaves after the Civil War. It is not, nor was it ever intended, to be used as some future citizenship catch-all for anyone who happens by accident (or worse, by cynically calculated design) to give birth in the US.
But it has been applied that way and it is a huge risk to try and upend people who are here. Best thing to do is declare it to be of no effect from now on. That’s fair. That’s not going to anger people already over the drawbridge. And angering them may be something US voters didn’t have to worry about 20 years ago, but they do now. Numbers. Just the numbers.
We’ve every right to “upend” people who are already here, if they are illegals. There’s no freebie if you just happen to make it across the border, get job and settle down. Those anchor babies who have mistakenly been granted citizenship have an extremely thin claim to continue to hold that citizenship, and the failure of immigrants’ “rights” shills to broadcast an honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn’t make it less thin.
That said, until their shaky citizenship is negated, there should be no effort to deport them. Canceling their citizenship will just never happen anyway and the focus should be on deporting ALL illegals anyway. If a citizen with parents who are illegals wants to stay. Fine. Leave? Fine. Parents want to take a citizen minor back home so he can come back when he’s a grownup? Fine. But there’s no need to upend the grown citizen.
The problem isn’t the 14th Amendment. It’s the American people themselves who have agreed that the sovereignty of the Nation and the concept of U.S. citizenship can be ignored and debased at will by millions of foreigners with no claim to enter the country — and by their domestic enables. So far, we have tolerated this massive assault on our country and what it means to be a citizen. We just don’t care.
I don’t disagree with much of what you have said. But having treated anchor as law for decades we are going to have a very tough time vacating it, espcially as to current residents who have kids that are US citizens under the anchor treatment. Many are in the army or holding down jobs with families. Many have kids in high school or college.
MOST republicans do NOT want to expell people who are here and working; we know these people; we like them.
We want to SEAL the boarder as to anyone not here. “Pull up the drawbridge” so to speak. Its the unending flow that has people really mad. The idea that our taxpayers have some “obligation” to fund, school, feed, educate and house another coutnry’s poor, and we’re all rascist if we don’t sit down, shut up and pay up.
But the author has a very valid point: the GOP will pay a serious price if they try to do NOW what might have been done without pain or outcry, 25 -30 years ago. Instead, the GOP sat on the issue and now there ARE so many hispanics here its not so easy to just say “head home.” Not if you care about who will be in congress for the next 20 years. There are lots of Hispanic voters and 30% or so vote GOP. Losing that block is indeed a big deal. Pretending its not is silly. Pretending its 1986 again is fantasy land.
In pushing to expel people already here–people that work, that have kids here, that work here, who ahve older illegal aprents here–you will lose many in the GOP anyway.
The thing that most people will agree to is to seal the border now.
I am not saying we have to create a “path to citizenship” for everyone hre. But sending them back is a remedy that wasn’t used in time. Its expired. Forget it.
Ok Smith, you are certainly entitled to believe as you assert that this will be costly for conservatives. Look, there is a long and heathly history in the Republican party regarding such large disagreements.
I don’t believe it. I refuse to roll over and buy the urban myth that if we as conservatives do the right thing for us and the country we will pay some electoral penalty with this mythical latino vote.
If I’m wrong – hey -the Dems will get the boost you believe. Maybe, just maybe, the will enjoy some 70 years of loyalty like Blacks have given since FDR.
I just don’t roll for the THREAT OF IT SMITH. I gotta see it to believe it.
In fact, how can you assert there is 30% of anything let alone how many conservative votes Latino’s have delivered? These numbers have been tossed around for decades. On one day during an argument we are told there are probably 500,000 illegals in our state. On another day we are told that there are some 2.5 million in english learner eating up massive resources in a state where we are consistantly last or next to last in educating our children.
Yet we have no means of even measuring how many illegals WORK IN OUR STATE OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT – let alone getting an intemized account of how much state aid goes to illegals!
The same is true of crime statistics. The more I’ve learned the less I trust ANY THING AS FAR AS STATISTICS COMING FROM EITHER SIDE!
Why? It seems that everyone, employers, politicians, pundits like Ruben, ALL HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN KEEPING THESE FACTS AS OBSCURE AND DIFFICULT TO DECERN AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
Again, why is that?
I happen to be opposed to anchor babies – you on the otherhand, make excuses for illegal behavior. If these children’s parents had behaved in a LEGAL manner, they would not have been born in the US and we would not be having this conversation. One of the reasons illegals come here is to have their babies (and yes, pregnant women will cross the border for the sole purpose to deliver in the US so their children will have ‘legal’ US perks. Canada’s health system sends via medivac high risk pregnant women to deliver in the US because we have more “beds” for such cases. (sure you want to emulate their health system?) Should their children AUTOMATICALLY be granted citizenship because they were born in an American Hospital when their mother’s government paid for the trip? their mother’s aren’t even residents, let alone illegal residents – just coming here for medical care.) Why should these parents be rewarded for *breaking the law*? or should we just deport the parents, and then put the children up for adoption in LEGAL families where they can be taught to live a life to RESPECT THE LAW? In Texas, there are mexican resident school children who live in mexico, who’s parents live in mexico, do NOT Pay any AMERICAN taxes, but because they were born in texas, go to school in texas everyday at the expense of the texas taxpayer. Who knows what other AMERICAN taxpayer benefits they get from a system their parents have never contributed to.
re: “Who knows what other AMERICAN taxpayer benefits they get from a system their parents have never contributed to.”
I think the next logical strp from that utterly valid observation is one of the biggest unsaid reasons the liberals fight so hard on the illegals issue — the ‘never paid anything in’ perfectly applies to multi-generational welfare dependence/fraud of American *citizens* too.
They are defending a flank of the welfare state, in the same way that the embryonic stem cell issue is so important to the Left — insisting hese embryos have no moral value defends the flank of abortion on demand.
Ked5~
You are so right! When I was a teacher in El Paso, I used to watch cars with Chihuahua license plates pull into the student drop-off every morning. The really outrageous part is that there were (and still are) students who aren’t US citizens at all and actually dwell in Juarez, but have an aunt or uncle in El Paso who falsifies the child’s residence as El Paso. The school is not allowed to question the child’s eligibility for services because the courts forbid it. The kid goes back to Juarez every night.
Kudos to Arizona for enforcing the Constitution and the nation’s immigration laws!
Chicken and egg. If the criminals in Congress had stopped the criminals who have invaded the sovereign borders of the USA, there would be no “anchor babies”. It’s past time to make chicken soup, or maybe, as Simon and Garfunkel sang, to have a “mother and child reunion” (a dish of hardboiled eggs and fried chicken). Send. Them. All. Home. Oh, and where are all those dozens of Afghani military men who deserted while training here in America? I hear they’re roosting with the chickens.
There is nothing “ugly and punitive” about it. The amendment this hides under was specifically written to protect ex slaves and , like all of the “reconstruction” amendments is flawed and needs to be re-written.
If the author is so concerned about the paper trail, perhaps the hospitals should simply turn away any pregnant illegals and let immigration rush them back to the border. Perhaps the author should go with them.
Did it EVER at any time occur to you that we LEGAL citizens are sick and tired of wetbacks (whether Mexican or otherwise)slithering into the country and dropping offspring? That Amendment was written for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and THEIR offspring, not for criminal illegals.
As for a job being the ‘true anchor’ BULL PATTIES. Illegals stress the welfare services intended for legal citizens AND YOU KNOW IT.
What is needed is an addendum to the 14th Amendment so that it reads:
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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
For the purposes of this amendment, no person born of proven illegal immigrants shall be afforded citizenship until his or her parents are afforded legal status as citizens.
In other words: You ain’t no citizen til mama and daddy get a green card IF mama and daddy are illegal. The addendum would not affect legal immigrant children whose parents did it right, nor would it call for the deportation of illegals and their children, it would merely reward LEGAL immigrants and not ILLEGALS.
La Raza speaks. The Canadians ended the anchor baby ploy years ago. Seems every pregnant woman in Hong Kong was flying into Vancouver to establish a family beach head with their new baby. Depart all wetbacks asap.
In most countries the newborn assumes the nationality of the mother. There is no ambiguity and no army of occupation pouring into the country. The 14th ammendment refers to freed slaves, not foriern invaders bent on reconquista. Thank god someone is trying to address the issue. If it isn’t delt with we will cease to be the USA Azitlan will become a reality.
Good for Arizona. The children of invading barbarians should not be rewarded with one of the coveted citizenships in the world: American Citizenship. These are the children of an invading army.
It appears to me “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a clause subordinating “All persons born or naturalized”. If simply being born in the U.S. entitled one to citizenship, then why did the framers of this amendment feel it necessary to include it? Just curious.
I’m not sure why it was written that way, but it does address the issue of children born to diplomats. Diplomats and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which is why they don’t automatically become citizens when they are born here. Illegal aliens and their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. It’s not a loophole, quite the opposite in fact.
Not so fast. Here is part of the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment:
Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” Sen. Howard said that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
“In light of these and other statements made during the Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears clear that the authors intended only to grant citizenship to persons born here who were also “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They understood that phrase to have the same meaning as the phrase “and not subject to any foreign Power,” included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which these same Senators had earlier drafted. And by “subject to the jurisdiction,” they meant “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense,” and “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
“It would be difficult to argue that illegal aliens and temporary visitors are “not subject to [a] foreign [p]ower” or that they do not “ow[e] allegiance to anybody” but the United States. The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue.”
The former slaves were under the jurisdiction of the U.S. “in every sense.” But illegal aliens owe allegiance to their country of origin, and only people who were seeking to thwart our law would see it otherwise: employers, the illegal aliens themselves, and the vote-buying/corrupt politicians, oh, and people like Ruben.
Gee, Ruben, I wonder when we’re going to seed the same commitment to enforcing the existing illegal immigration statutes that you know claim is so holy when the law is applied by the 14th amendment? Or do you pick and choose the laws and Constitutional amendments you think should be enforced, like liberals do? Funny how he is for the law all of a sudden, when it benefits illegal immigrants from Mexico.
You know damn well that illegals abuse that law in order to gain entry into the country for their whole families, when otherwiss it would have been denied. They break the law to do this. Ruben wants to reward law breakers and it appears that its only because he shares a skin color with them. Thats pretty racist in my book.
Even if your intrepretation of the 14th Ammendment is valid — and I don’t concede that it is — so what? Have you ever heard of the 21st Ammendment, you know, the one that completely repealed the 18th? Or were you sleeping in Civics as well? Please explain to me the logic of automatically making citizens out of the offspring of criminals.
The Republicans may find that failure to address the anchor baby issue is what is radioactive. A lot of the problem right now is that Republicans are too timid to address the issues that need to be addressed, and anchor babies is one of those issues.
Michael, Here here — bravo! The Republicans need to grow a pair nationally and take on these liberal sacred cows. The author of this article represents the true problem with the party.
This is the law as it applies to LEGAL citizens, such as I: A child that is born to a woman who is in the US on a legal visa becomes a US citizen and has the right to a US passport. However, the mother must leave the country when the visa expires and wait until the child reaches the age of twenty-one to apply for legal residence for herself. Moreover, she may not wait out the intervening years within the USA but in her own or another country. When the child reaches twenty-one the mother may begin the application process, which may take another 2-3 years and entails countless documents, medical tests, interviews and several hundred (or thousand) dollars. She must also provide proof of employment within the USA or financial independence. I am now a proud US Citizen, thanks to my adult “anchor baby” but I achieved it the long, tortuous, frustrating, expensive, LEGAL way. To give legal rights to people who are here ILLEGALLY makes utter fools of those who respect and abide by the laws of the USA.
So it would appear that the constitution truly is a suicide pact.
Yes, it is hard not to miss those good old days of wise Republican leadership. We can see how far seeing it was by simply witnessing where we stand now.
It’s not a radioactive issue anymore. Illegal aliens have to discover that the American taxpayer–who, in many instances receives far fewer breaks and benefits from the government than they do–is tired of being dumped on–tired of being dumped on and paying for the priviledge with his own dime.
Yet another RINO whines his little tune of denial and misdirection…He must think we’re still asleep at the wheel and all he has to do is rub our belly with yet another smear of a guilt trip and we’ll walk away ashamed of his idiotic half-truths.
How DARE you!
Reuben baby deserves every jab he gets for that article. This practice is nothing but a loophole, and the bait is welfare and other benefits. While welfare has grown beyond its original intentions, it is for U.S. citizens, not for global loopholers. Whether or not it is constitutional is not for Reuben to decide, although the way the SCOTUS is trending, I’m not sure how wise their decision would be when it reaches their court. Voters can’t directly affect who sits on the Supreme Court, but they sure can affect who makes the laws and who appoints the justices. This November it is time to make voting choices that will turn things around and keep the U.S. free.
There is an Urban Legend about a 23 year old unmarried unemployed Mexican woman, which came illegally to Florida as a teenager. It’s said she has had 8 anchor babies for which she receives $1,500/month each from the state to care for them. You do the math 8 times $1,500 times 12 months, that’s over $100,000/year from the US tax payer to pay for an illegal alien and her anchor babies, to continue to live here illegally. I don’t know if this is a true story, but the fact that I find it plausible is an indictment, on the whole anchor baby problem and the illegal aliens that are using the law to game the system.
Mr. Navarette is correct. If we try to deport people born on U.S. soil, we open a can of worms.
There are plenty of other ways to control illegal immigration. Starting with, station the National Guard on the border to block illegal immigrants, work with Arizona law enforcement to deport illegal immigrants picked up by local police, and – don’t bite my head off here – increase the number of permits given to LEGAL immigrants who are prepared to stay home and wait in line and pass background checks.
Remember, the point of immigration enforcement isn’t to exclude Mexicans. We, as a nation, WANT and NEED immigrants, including Mexicans. The point of stricter border control is to exclude Mexican drug dealers and excess Mexicans (Mexicans who will take jobs from Americans by working below the minimum wage).
“There are plenty of other ways to control illegal immigration. Starting with, station the National Guard on the border to block illegal immigrants, work with Arizona law enforcement to deport illegal immigrants picked up by local police, and – don’t bite my head off here – increase the number of permits given to LEGAL immigrants who are prepared to stay home and wait in line and pass background checks.”
So lemme se if I hear you right.
We should station NGs at the border top keep people from taking advantage of a very soft immigration policy.
Deport people who are here and waiting for said immigration policy to evolve to the natural conclusion of psuedo-open borders.
Increase the permits given to people for passing the tests required to immigrate even though it’s all on them to study.
By home you mean Mexico/wherever? Seems to me like kicking them out and forcing them to do what our ancestors did is very fair.
Oh and cut them off from all entitelement programs.
Katie~
We do NOT need immigrants! We have about 320 million people living in the United States already, and we have unemployment and underemployment running at about 16% right now. We don’t need more people to scarce jobs from Americans. We need to put Americans back to work.
Excuse me if I’m double posting, my earlier comment hasn’t posted.
I agree with Mr. Navarette. We can solve the problem of illegal immigration by doing lots of other things (like post the National Guard on the border and deport illegals when they are identified by local law enforcement authorities and have better id checks to identify illegal employees working with fake ids). If we did all the other stuff that we can do but are too politically correct to do, anchor babies wouldn’t even be an issue. The whole “anchor baby” thing is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, could be cruel AND open up a can of worms on citizenship.
Mr.Navarrette,
Why exactly did we enact the 14th Amendment? It had nothing to do with invading hordes of people to the US. It was written to protect the slaves after the civil war. Since we no longer have slavery, we no longer need the 14th Amendment.
Wow! the depth and inimitable style of all the invective here convinces me more than ever that the Republican Party’s destiny is to become an embittered splinter group, never gaining more than 20% of the vote.
A few points: – despite all the ‘expertise’ displayed here, the Constitution is what our judicial system says it is. If you don’t like that, pass a Constitutional amendment of your own.
– US-born children of illegals can and do get AFDC payments–but since the Clinton reforms, these are now limited in duration and scope.
– Ruben is 100% right: the real anchor is a job. If you don’t like that, pass laws to put employers and CEO’s in prison. What? Too many Republicans in those categories, you say? Gee whiz…
(Ruben, my regrets that the Union-Trib dropped your column; I always enjoyed reading it)
I agree with you put employers in prison. A new amendment to the Constitution if necessary. Deport the parents and they have the option of bringing the child or leaving the child here, this violates no law and is a consequence of violating immigration law, not ” mean spirited”.
Rubin has the right to voice his opinion, and I too enjoy his writing.
Ah, so would you advocate the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach for the Republican party? Maybe they could just adopt every plank of the Democratic platform to avoid becoming electorally marginalized? And that would improve things how? Besides, I don’t think you’ve exactly got your finger on the pulse of the public if you suggest that this issue somehow puts the Republicans at risk of becoming marginalized to 20% of the vote. People are decidedly against illegal immigration and favor doing more to crack down on it. This is a winning issue for the Republicans, not a detriment.
It’s always a laugh riot when liberals and “moderates” deign to tell Republicans what they better do if they intend to avoid electoral failure. Because they have the Republicans’ best interests in mind, right? Screw that. They need to run on what is best for protecting this country, not what some self-appointed moral compasses in the media say is best. If the voters don’t agree with it, then so be it. At least the mess they inherit will be entirely of their own choosing.
There are plenty of laws already on the books, that if actually enforced- i.e. the employer sanctions enacted during the last amnesty, pardon me, comprehensive reform debacle under Reagan- would dry up the jobs and do much to get rid of the non-terrorist illegals.
I agree that the intent of the 14th amendment was to clarify the citizenship of former slaves. However, the reality and therefore precedent, is that the law has been applied for a significant amount of time to grant citizenship to anyone born here. In fairness, I don’t believe in changing the rules now. Unless it’s by constitutional amendment.
FWIW, the most distasteful part of the last amnesty, err comprehensive reform, was that criminals who’d managed to evade the police for 7yrs (or at least provide documentation they did) were granted citizenship while foreign nationals here legally and serving in our armed forces, risking their lives for the US were not.
Tami: Under statutory (and constitutional) interpretation intent is only relevant if the plain language of the law is unclear. The plain language of the 14th Amendment is unambiguous; therefore the intent is irrelevant. Short of changing the constitution, the anchor baby issue is dead. And in order to change the constution you need 2/3 votes in both chambers, plus a majority of the legislatures of 38 states. And there is literally no way the GOP can reach that level of support by pushing this issue. We’re not talking a majority here — we’re talking lopsided majorities the likes of which the GOP hasn’t enjoyed since the early days of the Hoover Administration. It isn’t happening. Ever.
Tammy,
you stated, “Since we no longer have slavery, we no longer need the 14th Amendment.”
Actually, none of the bill of rights were considered limitations on state governments until passage of the 14th amendement after the civil war. Even then, individual rights have had to be incorporated against the states over time. Most recently, the second amendment rights were upheld as limitations on state government in McDonald vs City of Chicago.
So, without the 14th amendment the states could limit free speech, assembly, etc. etc.
The Oath of Citizenship:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
How can someone who retains their citizenship in their host country (Mexico) possibly swear this oath honestly? The open borders people make no secret of the allegiance they still have with their homeland. The act of coming to the US is illegal as is the identity fraud many illegals commit to take jobs so their goes the part about defending the laws. Anyone with a brain knows the 14th amendment was intended to make sure the children of slaves were given citizenship. The only other western nation who allows this is Canada, then again they don’t have a failed 3rd world country on their southern border.
The wording of the 14th Amendment is the problem but unfortunately, it has been interpreted to mean almost any child (those of diplomats excepted) is a U.S. citizen simply by being born within U.S. borders since before illegal immigration became such a problem.
The answer is a constitutional amendment. No court is going to go with the slave argument no matter how right. Illegal are subject to our laws (i.e. they can be arrested for murder, diplomats can´t) and have other Constitutional protections. AZ will lose this case, but I think the point for them is to raise awareness…. and people’s ire. A constitutional amendment is very difficult to achieve but not impossible. Its time to start pushing for this now, If/when AZ loses the case, it should simply stop issuing birth certificates altogether and tell the feds to do it… as they should not determining who gets one and who does not.
The so called ANCHOR babies are nothing more than the fruits of illegal activity, so why should we continue to allow it
Sometimes I think Ruben is writing for La Voz de Aztlan. I find the sub title “There was a time when Republicans knew better than to handle radioactive material” to be repulsive. Israel is dealing with the same issue now. While I am often critical of Israel, I see no way the Jewish people there could survive the demographics: even importing Russian Jews for the settlements (a Machiavellian move) cannot counteract the overwhelming difference in birthrate. Do we wish the U.S. to be multicultural, or do we wish it to be a Mexican culture? We face the same dilemma as Israel. The time to tackle it of course is after November (if we make it past an Obama “October Surprise”). Take both houses from the failing Democrats (who just put the Carbon Tax on hold, a mark of collapse), and than treat illegal as: illegal. I have fine Mexican-immigrant neighbors who, believe it or not, came here legally. My patriarchal grandfather came from Canada on a work permit. He built aqueduct tunnels to L.A. to earn his citizenship. He raised a family after earning his citizenship. Both in Israel and here, the question is how to deal with the issue of demographics humanely but sanely. Putting Palestinians in concentration camps may not be humane, but surrendering our culture to a Mexican invasion is not sane.
I say great for Arizona. At least that state is taking the bull by the horns. Mr. Naverette’s essay is unintelligent, to say the least.
Given that his last name is of Hispanic origin, I would contend that he is a racist and has thinks conservatives are picking on “La Raza”. Let’s face it, the vast majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico. This clouds any opinions he may have.
Common sense would dictate that any offspring of an illegal alien would therefore be illegal as well. This is a no-brainer. They shouldn’t be considered American citizens and should be deported along with their parents. That would go far in fixing our social ills. They are only half the problem though.
What is really destroying this country is our entitlement programs run by liberal democrat bureaucrats and politicians. American tax payers can no longer afford to finance anchor babies of any kind. California, the entitlement leader, is broke as a result. In California, anybody who has a kid, and doesn’t have a job, gets welfare. No questions are asked, not even their immigration status. Every freeloader, whether they are an illegal alien, legal immigrant or natural born citizen, can make a career out of popping out kids. Even worse, the system encourages welfare recipients to have more kids because they just get more money. As a result, California has more welfare recipients that the next nine highest states put together.
In California’s case, the dependency class is so large we may be past the tipping point. Those that suck up the wealth out number those that produce the wealth and will now perpetually vote for the liberal whack-jobs that provide them their meal tickets in return for votes. If the trend isn’t thwarted soon, the state will crater.
I applaud Arizona for trying to stem the tide and not ending up like California.
Navarrette, cut to the chase and tell us why you favor RECONQISTA. It wll save alot of time.
Bad analogy. Dynamite is a material that has not yet exploded all over the place.
Navarrette::
All the clever attempts at argument for your position fails for one simple example:
The children of the poor souls who break into my house do not have the right to eat and sleep there for the rest of their lives, certanly not when I cannot any longer afford to pay the rent.
If you intend to impose such thinking by force, perhaps you should stop by my place first, to save everyone else the trouble of putting such idiocy to enternal rest.
As sarcasm your screed only went half way. Have a nice day.
While I disagree with Mr. Navarette on many points I certainly wouldn’t classify him as a reconquista. He has repeatedly brought up the valid point that the willingness of employers to utilize illegal immigrant labor is a huge draw. Similar to the US demand for drugs driving the illegal drug problem. I differ with him on the advisablity of granting amnesty and his avoidance of the terrorism aspects to illegal immigration.
SB1070 is a good law, and certainly doesn’t seem to contradict any federal law as evidenced by the judge in the case making some very skeptical comments regarding the DOJs pre-emption arguments. I think any state law defining US citizenship is certainly going to conflict with federal law on the matter. Hence, I believe Mr. Navarette is justified in pointing out this may be ill advised and waste of effort.
I do wonder though whether a state could refuse to acknowledge the children of illegals born in the US as state residents and deny them benefits/support.
If you actually read the debates and discussions of the men who passed the 14th amendment, you would find that the “being under the jurisdiction” clause excludes not only the children of such people as transients, diplomats, and Amerindians born on reservations, but the offspring of outlaws and fugitives, i.e., persons entering the country “under stealth,” which is to say ILLEGALLY.
Congress has a great deal of power to determine who is and is not under US jurisdiction for citizenship purposes. Simple legislation, and not an amendment, was all that was needed to give automatic birthright citizenship to kids born on reservations. Simple legislation is all we need to explicitly declare illegal aliens to be (duh!) OUTLAWS, that is, persons outside the law and therefore not “under US jurisdiction.” I would be very much in favor of such a change, as I believe the current policy is idiotic and cheapens the value of citizenship.
It would be nice if people here would quit calling Mr. Navarette a “racist”. (Good heavens! Haven’t we had enough of that?) But then, it would also be nice if Mr. Navarette would state his own views without declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is a “nativist,” a crazed extremist, or a shill for rich employers.
Okay lets kick out the illegals and keep the kids cause that would be so much kinder. /Sarc
-_-
I agree with styrgwillidar. Navarante’s views on immigration may be in the distinct minority on this cite but his views on immigration are a much more nuanced than, say, La Raza (true Reconquista proponents). Accusing someone as favoring a reconquista ideology is a serious charge. It’s like accusing someone of racism. Hell it IS accusing someone of racism. And if you’re gonna make that charge against someone you better have more evidence than the speaker’s nationality and the fact he isn’t a full throttled opponent of illegal immigration.
Ruben states anyone who doesn’t support open borders is a racist…. his immigration views are nuanced… his pro-illegal alien views are not… they are just racist.
Lets shake each other awake here;
Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement
http://tinyurl.com/dctpaq
The Gumball Presentation (5 minute video)
http://tinyurl.com/6b2osk
The Illegal Alien Destruction of Maywood CA
http://www.alipac.us/article-5401–0-0.html
I really am tired of seeing my property tax dollars going to educate children who are not citizens.
I’m really tired of racists who rant against American citizens and hypocritically call American citizens racists who speak out in defense of their country.
I am really tired of a president who commits acts of treason by not defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I am really tired of the socialist press not printing the truth and then lamenting how their industry is no longer seen as relevant and is going down hill.
I am really tired of the mayor and city council of Los Angeles making stupid and embarrassing proclamations based on politically correct ignorance.
What’s that? You say the President has committed treason? That’s wonderful news! All you have to do now is marshal your carefully-assembled evidence, and Congress will remove him from office. What a relief! (Plus we’ll be able to enjoy the enlightened rule of Joe Biden). Your news has made my day.
As several posters have pointed out, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make former slaves U.S. full U.S. citizens, NOT to make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and collect welfare benefits and free medical care.
And, for the record, having an “anchor baby” does not mean that an illegal immigrant cannot be deported. It may seem cruel to deport the parents of children, but it is perfectly legal and arguably appropriate. No one would prevent them from taking their children with them as they get sent back to Mexico.
Lastly, why does everyone insist that the only choices are deportation or amnesty? If a Mexican can “live in the shadows” at age 30, I don’t care if he stays in those shadows until he dies at age 80. He entered those shadows voluntarily, and if he doesn’t like living in fear he can leave.
And is “picking on someone his own size” the best Navarrette can come up with? He’ll certainly never get a Pulitzer that way.
And he might want to occasionally want to write about something other than race and how everyone is picking on him because of his ancestry. (If I want crap like that I can read Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis.) If he’d stop his race rantings perhaps people would take him more seriously.
Read The Obama Timeline at http://www.colony14.net and learn how we got into this mess.
styrgwillidar: If I have $1 million lying around my house, that is a huge draw to thieves, none of whom have any right to enter my house, much less enjoy any hospitality.
Your arguements are almost as pathetic as Naverette’s.
Sorry, it isn’t the same.
The employers are co-conspirators in this travesty. It’s like you have a million lying around your house and your son helps some folks come in and take it.
I think of my immigrant father and how he had to quit school in the 3rd grade to work once his father was blinded in a coal mining accident. He worked around mines, produce markets , a waterboy around the boxing game,anything legal he could find. Eventually he became a professional boxer and made his living for 10 years that way. He tells of having his jaw broken early in a fight and still finishing the fight in a draw. His brother had to go into a church orphanage when my dad was a young boxer and my grandmother died and his blind father could not care for the little boy. My father was helped back to school by his manager, the proceeds from boxing and the church and eventually became a pioneer in a professional field. He spawned a couple generations of professionals and was so thankful for the opportunity this country gave him. He loved his hard work and especially his chance to get educated. His story of incredibly hard work is not all that unusual. The immigrants of his day were generally thankful. I never heard anyone in his family talk about getting stuff for free from the government, they would have been ashamed.
The author more or less says anyone should be able to come here to take whatever they want and if you don’t like it, you stupid taxpayer, you are a racist. Reuben, you seem to be a bit an ingrate. If the country of your ancestry is populated with such righteous people tell us how they treat “anchor” babies. Tell us of the wonderful life the government and people of your ancestors provide for those visitors to your familial land. I would like to hear how your proud people treat immigrants where your family comes from. Are they generous like the US? Do they take kindly to being called racist by those who seek money and opportunity from their citizens? Do they provide a vision of hope for the future? You have told us we are racists because we dare to think out loud about our country in a way you don’t approve. I would love you to use the example of that land your ancestors left and teach an ignorant man like myself how real decent and noble people treat those without money or papers who wish to create a home and future in that country. A lot of us appreciate the founding fathers and the country that allowed us to come here. It seems you don’t think much of those who built this land. Do you consider yourself an American or are you a hyphenated something or other or do you call yourself a name reserved for those who live in a land your family left to come here? It seems you have been privileged more than many of us, are you thankful for the opportunities the US gave you?
Already there are arguments here that refute your claim that children, born to illegal immigrants, from ANY country, I will also add, are declared citizens of the US by the 14th ammendment.
I will start this treatise by saying I am no constitutional scholar. I just read a lot and have a basic understanding of english and can ferret out ‘intent’ in otherwise non-obtuse grammer.
The key to understanding the 14th ammendment for the anchor baby question is the word ‘AND’ in :All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
“Born AND subject to the jurisdiction of” does NOT say that the child IS when the parents ARE NOT. They are all qualified or not under the one phrase.
I would further argue (reasonable logic) that anyone here from another country (foreign National)for any viable/legal reason who has the good fortune to bear a child while here, has a child (foreign national v anchor baby) that is native to their parents and native to their country of origin.
I submit that, for the purpose stated here, and not taken out of context, an illegal immigrant is equal to a foreign national except in the ‘legal’ sense, as a foreign national can be in the USA legally.
This is supported by definitions for Foreign National on page 93 and Ilegal Alien on page 94 of the CITIZEN ATTESTATION VERIFICATION PILOT (CAVP) PROGRAM EVALUATION as submitted to the DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security 2003) http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/citiz_attest_ReportV2.pdf
It would be a great gift to Mexico to return
their now well trained middle class to their homeland.
As part of the deal they’d have to take their underclass
and crimnal class back too. But what the hey. Think about
it. All these people would have caught a glimpse of
how a real country operates. Think they would be content
to catch the same old screw job from the Mexican elites.
Not likely. They’d cause a revolution in Mexico that would
do that country some serious good.
You may have missed the fact that they don’t have the courage, individually or collectively to fight a ruthless government (when it wants to be, especially against ‘civilians’) that is even more corrupt than they are themselves. It’s easier to revolt against a government that is already lying on it’s back and willing to give up, for your vote.
The Zetas were trained in the US so why not give every illegal being returned to his native land a shotgun and a box of shells. This is as reasonable as current immigration enforcement.
Señor Navarrette and every other person resident in our beloved fraternal republic who feels the way he feels, [(il)liberals, NB, do not think] is — and whether he likes it or not — a traitor.
For by any other name the “Democratic” potty incited, encouraged and facilitated thirty-five million or so strong criminal alien invasion and colonization of America is no less a treasonous activity than were the criminal alien invaders and hostile colonizers in uniform — and armed.
Fortunately treason is still a capital crime so we may continue to live in optimism and in hope.
“For this day’s work, (“Democrats”), you have encouraged treason…. A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of (our beloved fraternal republic) to him.”
– Marcus Tullius Cicero
This story is an interesting perspective. We all know that this is a stupid and nationally suicidal policy that affects more than just illegal aliens and their ‘babies’. We all also know that there is no such constitutional right or privilege. And we all know that some thing needs to be done to stop it. Some thing MUST be done. But the courage, integrity and intestinal fortitude of the people who have asked to become our representatives in these fights and that we have sent to tackle the big jobs, turn their backs to the issues and take on only the stuff that lobbyists will pay them to do, on top of the money hey get from constituents whom they ignore, deride and ridicule.
Some how this doesn’t seem to be the model we were told it was.
I guess by Ruben’s logic, if someone comes over to your home and pee’s on your lawn thus marking their territory, your home now has a new owner. Well, sort of makes sense if you are sick in the head like this idiot trying to sound like a champion of human rights for illegal immigrants. I would be an idiot also if I honored the claim of the pissee who said that they now had rights to my property by virtue of having marked their territory. However, in real life, they would have to fight me for it first!
The problem here is no one is really willing to call Mr. Navarette what he really is either by direct sympathy or by foolish blindness: a stooge for the ReConquista who is working for the return of the Southwest to Mexico and the revenge upon and eventual removal of all white people from the Western Hemisphere.
Which puts him right in with the rest of those folks allied with the Weather Underground and the whole cabal of Marxist traitors that surround the biggest lying, thieving, murderous, Al Qaeda / Islamist sympathizing, Community-organizing, MEChA activist, racist, hypocritical, treasonous, rat bastard alive: Barrack Hussein Obama.
This is what they ALL believe…
http://www.archive.org/stream/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_925/weather_djvu.txt
Ruben, let me make this simple: Open Boarders= Reconqista.
Demographics facts on the ground ALWAYS trump everything else.
1. Discussions of “the intent” behind the 14th Amendment are moot and pointless. As in any controversy over the meaning of the words used in a law, you start by looking at the actual language of the law. If the words used provide a clear result, the analysis is over; intent no longer matters. If the words of the law are not precise, and we’re left with more than one reasonable interpretation, only then can we look to things like intent. Here, the drafters might well have been talking about slaves, but they wrote a very clear and all-encompassing Amendment.
2. The last thing this country needs is a Constitutional Convention. Once we open that door, every group with any desire to change something in the Constitution will submit their own proposals for voting. Do we want to possibly see the 2nd Amendment dropped? Do we want to see an expansion of criminal rights? An expansion of rights to some sort of minimum income? To housing? Do we want to see eminent domain liberalized to the point where government can control all of our property to the benefit of whomever it favors? We risk all of that when we talk about making our own desired change.
3. The jurisdictional issue isn’t really an issue. Once the parents are here on our soil, our government has jurisdiction over them, illegal or not. The only exception to this comes when, by agreement, people enter our country without subjecting themselves to our jurisdiction, and we agree that they can do so. Diplomats from the UN get parking tickets and traffic tickets constantly, and throw them away, and the NY police can’t do anything to them, because they are in the US subject to an agreement that jurisdiction does not attach to them. There is no such agreement concerning illegal aliens.
4. The clear and obvious remedy, of course, remains in the deportation of the still-illegal parents. If we want to end the Anchor Baby problem, we’ll need to overcome our societal resistance to breaking up families.
5. Mr. Navarette, you may have some valid points in your article, but they’re wasted by your presentation. If you’ve written this to persuade Republicans of anything, go back to Basic Writing 1 and listen more closely. Language that personally insults your audience isn’t the best choice. An “ugly and punitive crusade . . .”? “Chew toy”? “If you were sleeping in high school . . .”? Screw you. My knowledge of the Constitution puts yours to shame, your love of the strawman argument indicates your poor reasoning abilities, and the position that you are trying to support instead ends up being weakened because you will convince so many readers that, if this is the best defense of that position, then the position cannot be logical or moral.
No.5 was basically my point. Had he been a bit more respectful and fact based rather than insulting of those with different opinions he might have had a decent discussion. He has the standard liberal demeanor(ie., demeaning).
The categories of people not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for the purpose of immigration law, and whose children are not US citizens are known.
1. Foreign Sovereigns, if Queen Elizabeth had delivered a child on US soil that child was not a citizen.
2. Diplomatic personnel as protected by the Vienna Treaty, i.e. the Ambassador’s wife and not the cook.
3. Children born on foreign warships transiting US waters.
4. Camp followers of an invading army.
Now there are two ways that someone can be unlawfully present in the United States.
1. They could have entered legally after being admitted at an Open Port by an Immigration Officer, usually from US Custom’s and Border Protection, and then overstayed their visa.
2. They could have evaded inspection and entered illegally.
For the purpose of completeness I should mention that person’s paroled into the country, for urgent medical care for example, have not been lawfully admitted.
Given that people who entered legally are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the country their children should be citizens under the XIVth Amendment if born in the US. Illegals who entered through a Port after inspection are also entitled to the full range of Constitutional protections, including due process and a presumption of innocence before being deported. The majority of illegal aliens are not in this category but we cannot assume that an illegal evaded inspection, unless they are apprehended following a hot pursuit from the border, and therefor most illegals gain the presumption that they did enter legally until it is proven otherwise.
Persons who evaded inspection are subject to immediate deportation and a permanent bar on reentry. If they were to be considered as members of an invading army, which would be a political decision, then their children would not be citizens at birth. As I read the Constitution it appears to be within the power of a State to declare itself under attack, invasion or facing insurrection. No State has the power to revoke the citizenship of someone born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Finally there may be some need to consider the implications of the term “camp follower.” Is a female who enters illegally as part of a mass migration of illegals a camp follower? Is a US citizen who knowingly has sex with an illegal and becomes pregnant a camp follower, whose child would not be a citizen? Would a child conceived by an act of rape by an illegal to be considered as the child of a camp follower or of a citizen who was assaulted? It is possible to craft a law that addresses these issues but the fevered atmosphere of demagoguery being used to forestall any consideration of the subject will make it harder to craft either an Amendment or a Bill that properly addresses these issues.
This is not a new problem but it got worse after Ted Kennedy worked on it, Hold Back the Dawn.
OK Ruben;
Just what is so “dynamite” about us outlawing ‘anchor babies’? At the time our 14th Amendment was written, 1868, we didn’t have any such thing as a massive infiltration of Illegal Aliens, nor was there a need for it’s authors to be concerned about anchor babies.
Times have changed, we need our 14th Amendment adjusted accordingly.
Back to the Daily Kos for you if you can’t hang with that!
It’s o.k. with me if the children of illegal aliens who are born here are American citizens.
Mom and dad ought to be deported. Junior can stay, if mom and dad don’t want to take him back home to Mexico (or wherever). We’ll take care of him, if his parents won’t.
It’s not like we’re going to toss kids in the gutter if their folks don’t want them.
I wish that just once, over all the years, Navarrette had taken the correct position on an issue. But, no. He gets a 100% rating from the PMI, Professional Mexican’s Institute), as he sincerely but wrongly believes that “good” is anything that gives La Raza leverage over the Gavachos. Conversely, “bad” is anything that doesn’t. He is racist, through and through. He defines “neighbor” as “hispanic”. He is but a latino Jeremiah Wright. He does not understand that he is required to love all his neighbors; even those without a single drop of mexican blood. Since he makes his living,(Judas money) selling hatred and lies, he will never repent. And some day he must stand before the judgment seat of Christ and try to explain away his hatred, perverted dialectic and vicious libels. Lets all pray for him.
I’m with Dave Surls. I don’t care if the kid wants to stay. The parents have to go and get in the line with everyone else. After all we have safely helped their kid be born. Probably a public expense.
Obamacare will probably abort all of those kids eventually. You know we have to become very efficient in our hell-care.
Berwick will figure out what the child of an illegal mexican with no job skills or education is worth and put the kid out of his miserable future.
I hope you all devote lots and lots of time, money, and energy to passing a Constitutional amendment that will settle the citizenship question. Of course that would take away time and energy from the endless, whining, self-pitying bellyaching about how this, that & the other are ‘treason.’
Half of you seem like you are already more than halfway towards the fortified compound and the koolaid vat. Not good material for rebuilding the Republican Party….
As a sovereign state, Arizona doesn’t have to issue anybody a birth certificate.
That being said, here comes round two.
And unless you’re a registered voter in Arizona, your opinion means spit.
To the people of Arizona, I feel for you. I live in Nevada, and it’s VERY bad here, we just don’t have a border.
Your state IS sovereign, never forget that.
Tghis isnt about rebuilding the repub party. Its about right and wrong. our’ self pittying’ is due to the fact that we are forced to pay for all these people. we pay for their school, food, healthcare, housing etc. why is it so hard for people like you to understand that the rules apply to YOU as well. where do you think all this money comes from to pay for these people? magic? santa clause? NO it comes from us ‘evil racist’ people. What will you do when our money runs out? While present anchor babies can stay in my opinion because the rule w, while abused, was the rule and should be applied. However, it MUST be changed. Perhaps you should have these ‘ hard working illegals’ focus on fixing their own countries verses them moving like locust swarms and destroying what others worked hard for
I had posted this as the first post two days ago. It got scrubbed!
Well, Navarette, you finally got something right, if only because it coincides with your hispano-racist precepts.
What to do with jur-solis babies? Easy. They’re citizens. What to do with their illegal parents?
Same thing you do with that wonderful (but illegal) couple who have been running the dry cleaning business in your neighborhood for 25 years, who’ve sent all their kids to college and pay all their taxes. NOTHING!
Until of course they appear in court under a felony charge or worse. Then you incarcerate them and repatriate them. Mom and Pop in the DC store down the street won’t ever be there, however.
First, of course, make an iron clad border — use death rays if you must — followed by a stiff guest worker system.
Come on Ruben! Why does every liberal feel they have a right to exclude themselves from the rules and laws they demand everyone else obey? We know that the 14th was NEVER meant to subsidize millions of illegal immigrants. Its not meant for mexicans to sneak across the border to squirt out a puppy in order to force us to pay for them. We all know that that rule is being used and abused. People like you will not be happy until America is mexico, and we all know how ‘wonderful’ mexico is. This is a SIMPLE case. Illegal means ILLEGAL! PERIOD! Every time one of you liberals start this nonsense on how us evil conservatives are mean because we dont want to support slavery or criminals I loose the desire to see any illegals made americans under ANY circumstances. In case you forgot or didnt know, we have given illegals amnesty before. and all it has done is made the situation far worse. illegals dont do anything thats worth this grief. Keep the damn strawberries. As far as im concerned I feel the immigration laws ned to be enforced. Illegals get 1 year to pack their junk and get out of MY COUNTRY. after that I fully support armed military raids to force them out. illegals will get tagged and any more illegals trying to cross the borger get treated as an invading army..and SHOT. There you like my suggestion Ruben? or should we start talking about illegals getting out
Though I support the measure, I believe we are pushing too hard, too fast, and we will shoot ourselves in the foot. The blow back could ruin all of the efforts, and though spiteful retaliation by the open-borders crowds and their sympathizers may be lacking in constitutional support, or democratic backing, it is damaging, nonetheless.
But I will give it to Mr. Navarette – he never seems to stop beating his ignorance drum; Yet another article lacking in logic, fact and legal precedence…ho hum.
Anchor babies need not be dynamite. Conservatives just need to ensure that they ensure families are kept together by respecting the will of the babies parents. As long as any child is considered a U.S citizen, then when they turn 18 they can demand their rights as a U.S. citizen. In the interim, their parents will be deported and can take their child with them. When the child is 18 they can choose to come back to the U.S. and get theri citizenship, but will have to renounce any citizenship or loyalty to the foreign state they were raised in, or the U.S. will revoke their citizenship. Under no circumstances will having a child eligible for U.S. citizenship by birth (anchor baby) be taken into account to determine immigration status, if you cam here illegally you will be deported and we will encourage you to take your child with you so it can be raised by its parents. U.S. citizenship the child’s birthright will wait until they come of age.
They shouldn’t have ever been considered US citizens in the first place.
It is about time it was fixed.
Its unfair the way it currently is, although Ruben Navarrette Jr. would have us feel shame and pity for daring to consider rectifying a long time problem.
THey are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. So you are saying the law is written so that if you aren’t a citizen and enter legally, your child ISN’T entitled to citizenship, but if you break the law and enter illegally, they are?
There was a time when US politicians werent so spineless as to kowtow to invaders who disrespect US law, looking for votes.
Read most of the above, at least enough to get the flavor of the conversation.
Just a couple of points:
1. The 14th Amend. wasn’t intended to cover anchor babies, but it does, both by its plain language and by legal precedent. Short of a clear declaration by the Supreme Court otherwise, that’s the way it is. Other than that option, the only way to change it is by Constitutional amendment.
2. Almost all of the conversation is about Mexican illegals. Last I noticed, that’s about 60% of the illegal population. Are all the outraged citizens here equally upset by Irish, English, Polish and other illegals? I rather doubt it, though if one threw in Russian, Chinese, and Somalians the outrage would start to rebuild.
The real point should be the rule of law. Go to the Supreme Court or pass an amendment; close the borders; enforce the law- even against cute Irish bartenders; and create an intelligent and enforcable guest worker program that will cover short term labor needs until we assimilate the immigrants already here.
We might even wish to think about whether we’d have the same problems if we had not aborted 50 million of our own, or if the welfare state had not made not working so comfortable that very few of our own will, or even can, do the jobs these illegals now do for us.
Last point, no thought should be given to amnesty without first excepting all proven criminals, real gang members, and everyone dedicated to “reconquista”, which is a solely Mexican problem. And before someone says that’s “racist”, truly an overworked word, note that a fair part of the European illegals fit under the criminal exception- i.e. the Russian mob, unrepentant IRA types, etc.
My grandmother was an illegal alien. She escaped the genocide committed against the Armenians by the Turkish government, and was smuggled into the US sometime during WW I. She lived for years as an illegal, and she had four children, one of them my mother.
My mother attended Detroit public schools, which were pretty good in those days. As a young woman, mom helped build B-24′s during WW II.
Long story short, the children and grandchildren of that one illegal alien all became productive, law-abiding members of society. My grandmother became a naturalized citizen but I’m not sure when.
Do we have a problem with illegal immigration? Yes, but when I see images of Mexicans climbing over fences to get here, I think of my grandmother. I sometimes wonder what would have happened had my grandmother and mother had been deported, or if my mother had been denied an education in the public schools.
The issue of “anchor babies” is indeed radioactive. But the nuclear bombs constructed from that radioactive material will be going off in Democrat constituencies.
Polls indicate that, no matter how violently leftypigs beat the ethnic solidarity drum, a majority of Americans of Hispanic descent despise the mojados. Navarette’s owners in the Democrat party may find that there fewer votes to be gotten from a shamnesty-and-open borders stance than they believe.
Interesting issue and also Israel has similar issues with illegal immigration. I would like to hear France and Germany views also. It appears that in the end ‘too much and not enough’ is the trend. Not enough jobs and too many immigrants with entitlement or too many undesirable jobs available and no legal citizens will fill. What is the answer? My opinion for the US is SHUT THE BORDER NOW, ALL WHO ARE HERE ARE DOCUMENTED, FINGER PRINTED, PHOTOGRAPHED WILLINGLY OR DEPORTED. THOSE WILLING TO BE DOCUMENTED HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY GET WORKER PERMITS, ASSIGNED A SSN OR ALIKE, TURN IN OLD SSN CARDS, GET EMPLOYMENT AND PAY TAXES. AFTER 1 YEARS TIME APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP IS MANDATED. WITHIN THAT YEAR FROM APPLICATION YOU MUST LEARN TO READ, WRITE, AND SPEAK ENGLISH AND PROVE IT. MANY CHURCHES OFFER THIS AT NO COST AND PROVIDED BY PARISHIONERS. Those who have record, in prison, or not complying with this amazing offer will leave the country. All bets are off. Those harboring known illegals who have not bothered to follow this process will jeopardize or possibly forfeit the process to make them citizens and be deported. Anchor baby or not.
Companies employing illegal/undocumented employees (regardless of fake SSN and they know who is legal and not since illegals never file for federal and state refunds) can be given amnesty from prosecution, ONLY if they begin paying taxes, withholding from all employees and do their own homework to make certain they are employing only those going through the process of aforementioned citizenship. Minimum wage or more mandatory.
Unions back off! Do not screw this up again! The US taxpayers already pay for you, your family, your pensions. Back off, we can’t afford you getting involved in this!
The Nation Guard and Haliburton or alike need to be attained to build, secure, and guard the borders. Maybe those in prison in lower states who are approaching the last couple years before being released can also be given an option to work on the border construction for a few months off their sentence. Look, we have so many resources to fill all positions available and to secure our borders. It is time! In the end all tax payers (and China) are supporting these folks anyway, let’s make it work. All will be happy. Everyone is protected. Mules are done! All are paying their fair share! Everyone has rights!