Initially, I dismissed most of GOP leaders' anti immigration rhetoric as sheer demagoguery and political opportunism. Particularly for senators who hail from states with a significant Latino vote, immigrant-baiting seems politically unwise. Couple that with the GOP's pro-business agenda (which supports comprehensive immigration reform) and coming demographic shifts in the American electorate, and it seems clear the GOP has far more to lose than to gain by engaging in ugly nativist posturing.
So it is with alarm that I watch respected Republican senators calling for a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants birthright citizenship to all babies born in the United States.
Those GOP senators who openly support a challenge to the amendment -- among them Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John Kyl -- hearken back to the days of the Know Nothing Party, when anti-German and anti-Irish sentiment were ginned up to win votes. If you've never heard of the Know Nothing Party, that tells you something about the success of this fear-mongering approach to American politics.
Often, those defending the rights of the undocumented will point out that the United States is a nation of immigrants. This is true. What is also true is that, throughout the course of our history, most ethnic groups fell victim to the same shameful bigotry being employed today by anti-immigrant activists and mainstream GOP leaders. From the nativist riots and Chinese Exclusion Act of the 19th century, to the Gentlemen's Agreement and quota acts of the early 20th century, anyone of Irish, German, Italian, Eastern European or Asian descent can easily trace and document both popular and institutional rejection and marginalization of one's forebears.
Today, anti-immigrant sentiment is focused mainly on the Latino population (even though 40% of undocumented immigrants actually enter the U.S. legally via student or travel visas). But this latest salvo in the immigration debate, the idea that the Senate should hold hearings to discuss the merits of the Fourteenth Amendment -- the very amendment, mind you, that granted citizenship status to freed slaves -- goes a step farther than even the most virulent anti-immigration crusades of the past.
Certain members of the GOP now seek to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented -- "anchor babies," as they so lovingly refer to them -- in order to discourage non-citizens from "dropping and leaving" their children in the U.S. in hopes of one day using those children to gain legal status. This strikes me as particularly ironic: the "Party of Life" is now contemplating making the very act of being born into some manner of criminal offense, punishable by denial of citizenship.
As a public teacher in Los Angeles, I had the privilege of teaching many of these "anchor babies," along with a fair number of undocumented students. Many were from Latin America, but not all. I could spend hours extolling their virtues, and enumerating the contributions they will eventually make to our country. I could argue passionately about the inherent unfairness of being forced to live on the margins of American society because your parents secreted you across a border before you were conscious of laws that would restrict such movements.
But I won't. Such arguments serve only to fortify those already in favor of immigration reform, and are met with derision by those who don't.
What I will say is that I taught Advanced Placement U.S. Government to one particularly gifted group of these students. A majority of them passed the exam - many with exceptional scores - and therefore know more about U.S. history and the principles established in the Constitution than the average American. On most days, this would fill me with pride. But today, it fills me with sadness. Because I know my students will understand, upon hearing arguments about repealing parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, that such proposals are directed against them. And, though they believe themselves to be as American as any baby "born or naturalized" in the United States, these children of immigrants will see that scoring cheap political points in an election year means more to members of Congress than does fairness, human dignity or the fulfillment of the American promise of equality and opportunity.
: Should 14th Amendment Be Repealed?
Unintended consequences of repealing 14th Amendment
Keyes Bucks anti-14th Amendment Tide
Does the 14th Amendment mandate same-sex benefits?
The 14th Amendment and The Menace of Anchor Babies: The GOP's New Wedge
I am simply left wondering why this immigration issue is being resolved on the backs of the poor when many wealthy Americans violate the law daily by employing them and exacerbating the problem they find so appalling. Conservatives hate illegal immigration but sure don't want you poking around to see who is working in their gardens, stables, packing plants, groves and fields. The worst that happens to them is they are usually disqualified from the US Supreme Court --otherwise no problem.
I disagree with any attempt to repeal the 14th amendment, but I believe that the application of the 14th amendment to give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants is contrary to the intent, and even the wording of the 14th Amendment, which begins:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF..."
Why the need for the last phrase? I believe the writers even then did not want to give citizenship to children of people who were here in violation of our nation's sovereignty.
Does it make any sense that I, a child of two parents who entered the country legally on a path to citizenship, had to undergo naturalization (because I was born two weeks before I arrived) but a child born to parents who WILLINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY violated the law and American sovereignty, whose parents have no path to citizenship, should automatically be a citizen at birth?
It is exactly this lack of reason that leads to the problems of "anchor babies," and unnatural decisions about chain citzenship that take immigration law out of our hands.
I don't favor a repeal of the 14th amendment. However, I strongly believe that the intent, and even the wording, are distorted in giving citizenship to children of those who have voluntarily entered the country illegally.
I don't have to point out that the 14th amendment was in response to slavery, and the intent was clearly to give citizenship to slaves.
Moreover, even the wording begins "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF..."
why the need for that final phrase? I believe that even then, the writers of the amendment did not want citizenship extended to children of parents who were properly citizens of another country, who by virtue of their parents and their parents legal situation, were not entitled to "birth right citizenship"
Does it make any sense that I, who was born to parents legally in this country, who entered the US on a path to citizenship, had to become naturalized (because I was 2 weeks old at the time I arrived) but children of illegal immigrants, with no prospect of US citizenship, should become citizens at birth?
My parents' education ended at age 13 due to WWII. I had no grandparents or other family to serve as examples. But I was able to obtain a PhD in Mathematics from a top University, a success story equaled by many children of legal immigrants in similar circumstances.
The US has a right to determine its own immigration policy, and to select who should be given the privilege to enter our country. There are 3 billion people who live on less than $1/day, there is no reason that such an overwhelming (defacto) preference be given to Mexicans and South Americans.
Birthright citizenship is part of our genetic DNA. Eliminating it would take away what differentiates us from our old European colonizers, most of whom to this day, don't have birthright citizenship. This entire hemisphere consists of nations of immigrants.
-- Abraham Lincoln
I recall reading a story several years ago about a woman who flew to Florida every time she was ready to give birth just so her children would be US citizens.
She didn't live here, she didn't stay here, she just wanted her children to be have dual citizenship.
Sounds fine until you realize she isn't alone in doing this and that she was on her 4th child at the time.
It's another question of ... why reward bad behavior? I'm for birthright citizenship if at least ONE of the parents is a U.S. citizen, but not in the case of neither being a citizen.
Seriously. We've had this part of the Constitution in place since 1866. America has somehow survived.... Now suddenly the GOP party of strict Constitutionalists wants to pick and choose parts they like and parts they don't? They want to radically change the Constitution to gain cheap political points?
I would be far more worried about John Kyl than I would a pregnant traveler...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=birth-tourism-to-the-usa-explodes-2010-03-12
And Turkey isn't the only one.