The 14th Amendment and "Anchor Babies": should it be changed/repealed?

An important point to remember is that children of illegal immigrants born in the US aren't just US citizens under the 14th Amendment, they also gain citizenship in their parents' home nation(s). Sending them back to their home countries would simply be moving them from one country of citizenship to another.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Not always true; most nations do not honor dual-citizenship, and given the birth certificate (the child's only legal documentation) would identify the child as born in the US, they are first and foremost US citizens until they or their parents petition for citizenship in their parents' country. Additionally, what kind of precedent do we as a nation set when we choose to deport a legal US citizen because one or more of their parents are in the country illegally? And how old would a US born child be before we did not deport them? Or would we always deport them? What if one parent is US and the other an illegal immigrant?

 

If jus sanguinis were universally accepted as an automatic right, then the Birthers would have absolutely no ground for challenging Obama's citizenship, as so far as I know no one is disputing who Obama's mother was. The fact is, different nations have different citizenship laws; some nations would provide citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, some nations would provide dual-citizenship, and some would consider the child to be the United States' problem.

 

Not necessarily.

Most nations follow some form of jus sanguinis at least until the child reaches the age of majority. At that point, some nations require the child to renounce other citizenships.

As for Obama, you forget that many birthers question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, they argue that jus sanguinis doesn't apply for him (as his father wasn't a US citizen and his mother was only 18 when he was born. Under US law at that time, a child born abroad only received citizenship if the mother was a citizen when the child was born, had lived at least 10 years in the US prior to the child's birth, and at least 5 of those years were after the parent's 14th birthday. Ann Dunham would have failed that last test had Obama been born abroad.

Incidentally, Obama held dual-citizenship until his 21st birthday. Kenya requires dual-nationals to renounce citizenship or swear allegiance or else their citizenship will expire in the 21st birthday.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, there you go. Jus sanguinis, not accepted as an automatic right in the US. If the US is not going to guarantee jus sanguinis in all cases, why would other nations be expected to? If the US denies citizenship to the children of aliens, and their parent's nation of origin denies them citizenship, then what nation are they citizens of? If they're not US citizens, and not citizens of any other nation, does the US have any right to deport them?

 

Well, Mexico, at least, (since a large portion of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, somewhere around a plurality) has natural-born Mexicans includes if or both of the parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory.

I'd also say that if, for example, the parents knew someone in the U.S. that they'd be willing to make a guardian of the kid, they could entirely do that. What I disagree is using children as moral pawns.

 

When I suggest that anchor babies not be a means for illegal immigrants to escape deportation, I don't exactly mean simply separating the parents and sending them back to their home country. There is only a particular capacity that the US orphanage system can provide for, which shouldn't be overtaxed because of anchor babies. If any illegal immigrant parents are to be deported, they should be responsible for either providing for the child in America, or for taking the child with them back to their home country. If there are not enough facilities to provide for all these anchor babies, they should not go over their normal capacity... and also grant first priority to US citizens, as to not make it impossible for Americans to put up their children for adoption.

So, you're saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to use their US-born children to escape deportation? Good for you, if you are, because they're already unable to do so.

And correct my if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear that, since 1961, jus sanguinis law has been amended (retroactively, no less) so as not to require the mother to be in the US for five years after age 19?

 

No clue, really.

 

I believe it was 5 years after age 14 (so basically, they had to also reach 19), but it was amended but I didn't think it was done retroactively.

 

Correct. It was amended in 1986 and only affects those born on or after Nov 14, 1986.

However, it only applies in the case where only one parent is a US citizen. If both parents are US citizens, then the only requirement is that at least one of them has previously lived in the US (with no time or age requirement).

Kimball Kinnison

 

I have a funny (but not a "ha ha" funny) story about that law. When we requested proof of citizenship for my Canadian-born daughter, we were first told that we had to prove her eligibility for citizenship, and then I had to prove my own citizenship, including handing in proof that I have lived in the country for 5 or more consecutive years. You'd be surprised how tricky that is when you can't use high school records (only 4 yrs), can't use college transcripts (unless you attended for 5+ yrs) and can't use employment records since, as they informed me at the immigration office when I tried to show them, I may have been commuting across to work, or living across the border on weekends. Thankfully, my mom had my old elementary school report cards (which happened to also show my attendance) which gave me 6 consecutive years in the same area.

It was by far easier for my wife to get citizenship than it was to obtain proof that my daughter was already a citizen from birth. From the people we've met along the way going through the same process, we learned that our story isn't unique. My wife's process from Residence to Citizenship took a couple years, but my daughter was 4 before we finally got her certificate of citizenship.

 

The problem with anchor babies is that only an adult can petition to make his parents citizens. And it takes some 20 years, during which time you cannot commit a crime under U.S. law (such as residing in the U.S. illegally). Good luck getting into America that way.

Whatever. If illegal immigrants didn't have to fear deportation, there wouldn't be so many jobs going to illegals. The only reason they're hired is because if they complain to OSHA or the EEOC or whomever, they'll be deported.

 

Reagan and North sold weapons to Iran. Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer. George W. Bush kissed Saudi and by extension al Qaida butt they whole time he was president. Dick Cheney made a deal with Saddam Hussein in the 90s.

Hmm...Seems that treason is more on the right side of the aisle.

 

So instead of being hypocritical, they're just fraudulent. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Although if employers were suitably punished for that, there also wouldn't be so many jobs going to illegal immigrants.

 

This always intrigues me. Exactly what jobs are they taking that americans are clamoring to do?

Granted, it used to be that "illegals" did only the dirt jobs that american didn't want to but this trend has shifted. As a result of this, more and more are being used in the main stream work force and yes, there are numerous reports citing that this is driving down wages for hard working americans. That being said however, aside from the scholars and the pundits, where is the out cry? We have an unemployment mess in this country. But what I'm not seeing are great revealing news articles about how Johnny Unemployed went to the lettuce field, couldn't get a job and then filed a complaint with the authorities. Easier for him to stay on the States dime and wait for that good job.

The entire system is screwed and this is a symptom of it, but we're not treating it.

 

Actually, the real problem with anchor babies is that they're an overblown phenomenon that's been trending downward in occurrence, and have only returned to prominence in a rather blatant attempt by the right to rally the base.

Oh, and it worked.

 

Construction, I'd say.

 

Apologies that not all of these are from the primary sources, but smaller papers seem to not keep old articles up as well as other sites do, but these are all the last handful of years, in association with raids.

USA Today on hiring after several raids
[linbk=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi]Newsbusters excerpt of The Clarion's article on Howard Industries raid

 

Just what I said. I just said it in a point of describing the legal reasons why it's a lie, rather than saying "It's a lie perpetuated so you'll vote for xenophobic politicians."

 

Agreed. The Long Answer:
Constitutional scholars generally see the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) as a second founding--a new constitutional order emerging out of the Civil War. Their ratification not only ended "official" white supremacy but also asserted federal supremacy of law through the incorporation of the 5th and 14th. The 14th Amendment has shaped constitutional norms since its inception. Many of the rights fundamental to America are traced to this language.

Specifically:
the fundamental right to privacy
the fundamental right to contraception
the fundamental right to choice
the fundamental right to heterosexual marriage/marital privacy
fundamental rights related to child rearing, family arrangements, sexual acts within the home, education of children, bodily integrity etc.

Beyond this, the 14th generally prevents from government action that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, and national origin. These are suspect classes and government action discriminating on this basis must pass strict scrutiny review which is nearly impossible.

My basic point: The 14th Amendment is as critical and fundamental to our constitutional order as the 1st Amendment. Amending the language to appease radical and fringe political elements (i.e. a vocal and uninformed minority would be contrary to the goals of the republic.)

Apologies for the rant. Unlike Glenn Beck, I graduated College and am in the middle of preparing for a conlaw exam for law school (so the issue is on my mind.)

 

True. Either way. Our current immigration policy was clearly drafted by someone working in the interests of the usual suspects: Hotel chains, agribusiness, massage parlors, and drug dealers. Good luck getting even the most xenophobic of politicians to change it.