The list distributed last week by an anonymous Utah group providing information on potential illegal immigrants has caused a general uproar - lack of privacy, leaking of sensitive information, suggestions of vigilante justice, etc.
However, the list issue that has received the least attention is the one that will prove one of the biggest political issues of next year: the birth of babies to undocumented parents. The disclosure of information detailing the pregnancy due dates of Latinas and how many children they have draws attention to the growing hostility toward Latino children both born and unborn.
In accordance with federal law, any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen. The documentation status of the parents is irrelevant. If you're born here, you're a citizen. As of late, the children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents have been labeled anchor babies. The gist behind this term is that having a child born on U.S. soil is a free pass to citizenship for the illegal parents of the child.
The idea that a child can act as an anchor is false. So much so, that one of the biggest motivators to getting immigration reform passed is to keep mixed families from being torn apart. The stories of kids coming home from school and finding out that their parents will not be coming home, ever, because they were caught in a raid and deported are not uncommon.
Citizen children of non-citizens can petition for their parent's citizenship after the age of 21. But even then, the petition is not assured approval. There are special circumstances where an undocumented immigrant who has been detained can request a special stay if they have resided in the United States for over 10 years and have a citizen parent or a child for which they are responsible. These stays, however, are not often requested and even less often granted.
The issue of anchor babies is soon to go from rhetoric to legislation. With its Latina pregnancy and child list, Utah sent the signal and Arizona is taking the ball and running with it. Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, who authored SB 1070, has already drafted legislation to deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona to undocumented parents.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state of residence. More specifically, the 14th Amendment goes on to state that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." No special exception is provided for Arizona.
Instances of vigilantism toward Latinos have and continue to take place. The Utah list that explicitly provides information on Latina pregnancies, their due dates, and their children suggests the potential for a horrible new brand of vigilantism - targeting pregnant Latinas and children.
With the new focus on the born and unborn babies of immigrants, the immigration issue has been taken to a new disturbing level. The denial of citizenship to U.S. born babies smacks in the face of the Constitution. The more serious issue, however, is the human rights violations that may take place if the anchor baby fires are stoked.
Situation to ponder for the author: A woman crosses our border illegally, goes to a hospital and gives birth, never pays the bill, and takes up residence in our country with her newborn, applies for aide for her baby, and is now paid by the American taxpayer…is that not a slap in the face to our system?
HB1288 is the "Anchor Baby" law.
While the author references the 14th Amendment and the law she neglects to mention that the case which decided citizenship of foriegn children born in the US was Arkansas Vs Wong, involving legal immigrant parents. HB1288 may or may not be constitutonal, but it is designed to put the question of the children of unregistered forigners before the courts. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was designed to be interpreted and amended.
A lot of the Left acts as if the rights of illegal foriegners are a foregone conclusion and we can do nothing because our Constitution guarantees them.
But our Constutution guarantees rights to Americans, not all the world.
We now are in a position where some would give complete rights and citizenship to any who cross our border owing to generousity.
Does America have resources to be generous to all the world who want what we have?
Is it wise to bestow citizenship upon those who didn't earn it but demand it just the same?
Those questions color this debate.
Citizens of foriegn nation's children have citizenship in their countries. Citizenship is a right that should be earned and they are wrong to demand that we give it to them because they managed to get here. No other nation does.
there are no "anchor babies"
it;s a ficticious term invented by the nativists who want to stop all immigration into the US. Having a baby born in the US does not give any "anchor" to stay the US to anyone. That is a lie from the right wing. If the parents are deported, they have to take their US born children with them or leave them in the US with relatives. It is no "anchor" at all as the thousands of undocumented mothers of US citizens get deported every single day,(regardless of their "anchor" children) can tell you
If your parents ran across the desert illegally, swam a river, jumped a gully, slept in a hot truck and followed a coyote into the US, your not an immigrant your a criminal seeking refuge. Your a fugitive who doesn't give a damn about waiting in line for citizenship and feels they should be at the head of the line without penalty.
We have laws. We simply need to enforce them.
If we amend the Amendment to discourage illegal fugitives maybe we'll see a decrease in criminal invasion.
And p.s. the author misrepresents the issue by saying "hostility towards Latino babies"......That's an incendiary way of drawing drama to an issue of legislation instead of dealing with the facts and history of the issue.
Additionally "they" (Mexicans) are not Latino. They are Mexicans (Mayan descendants). Latinos are descendants of Latin speaking cultures, which would be Italians, Greeks, Spanish.....etc... Everyone should stop using the nomenclature for Mexicans as Latinos. Mexicans have their own identity and nationality independent of Europe. Their Aztec cultural past is rich, strong and advanced in many areas of life we today still share.
typical nativist rant filled with ignorance of the law. So the children are "criminals" as well ?? LOL.
BTW, there is no "line" for citizenship for the unskilled labor force that makes up the vast majority of the illegal workforce. There is no legal path for these workers to come here to fill those jobs. That's why theyre here ilegally. not because they decided that paying thousands to a coyote and risking their lives crossing the desert was better than going in that mythical "citizenship line" that the nativists love to talk about.
I dont watch Fox
I'm not a conservative
I dispise RL, SH, and GB and all the other propagandites
You can try to pigeon hole me into a category if you like if you makes you feel like you can wrap your mind around what type of voter I am but there is no definition for what political party I belong too. I lean left on most issue but this is not one of them.
I fthey want their children with them, then they are welcome to take them back to their native country when deported. If these parents choose to leave their children here, then they themsleves are responsible for the "tearing apart" of families.
Yeah, like their poor decision to be born in a place with so few chances to earn an income for themselves and their family that making a dangerous trek into a foreign country where you are hated from the moment you get there to do work that pays less than minimum wage, is the best option you've got.
I find it interesting that the conservatives find the constitution needs to be amended because the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the illegal alien problem that we have today. But no amount of drive by shootings, or kids taking semi automatic rifles to school for a shooting spree can convince them that the Second Amendment's militia protections might be a little dated for todays world.
Illegal immigration isn't near as frightening as the conservatives are making it out to be. Crime along the border states is actually in decline, not getting worse (both violent crime and property crime). But to hear conservatives tell it, you should build a bunker in your living room and start buying ammo in bulk.
I get mail forwarded to me regularly by my conservative elders about this. Almost every bit of the stuff they send is about as valid as the case for Shirley Sherrod's racism. It takes me a long time to explain point by point that they're being lied to, but it's me that they don't believe.
FOR ANY AGENCY OR STATE TO DENY A BABY BORN ON U.S. SOIL IS ILLEGAL.
There's a reason the US Constitution, which has been amended only 27 times since 1787, withstood the waves of populist movements.
There's also a reason the knee-jerk, reactionary Arizona legislators who are painfully lacking in foresight, have changed their state constitution over 125 times since 1912 (that's more amendments to our state constitution than years we've been a state - trust me, it is not unusual to see 5 or 6 proposed state amendments on a ballot).
Repealing the 14th amendment will not happen. It takes a supermajority of both houses in Congress AND a ratification by 75% of the states. Yet, Russell "Knee Jerk" Pearce doesn't seem to understand that illegal is illegal.
I would definitely support a challenge to the 14th Amendment!
The illegal situation is why states like California are going broke. The illegals get all the freebees while driving their big SUV"S and the legal residents get screwed.
I have never seen so many Tundra Trucks!!
typical "conservative" talking points: illegals are here to steal jobs, get "freebes" and reproduce (lots of new brown us citizens, the horror!)
there are no "freebees" in this country, and much less anything for illegals. Stop watching Fox News
You can't cherry pick the Constitution to suit your view point - it is was it is (until it is changed of course)
there are no "anchor babies"
it;s a ficticious term invented by the nativists who want to stop all immigration into the US. Having a baby born in the US does not give any "anchor" to stay the US to anyone. That is a lie from the right wing. If the parents are deported, they have to take their US born children with them or leave them in the US with relatives. It is no "anchor" at all.
problem solved.
The 14th amendment was brought about because of slavery. They didn't forsee our ILLEGAL ALIEN problem.
There are of course the children of diplomats and others having diplomatic immunity that are not given US birth certificates.
The children of illegal immigrants (they are NOT undocumented parents unless the child is an orphan) are issued a birth certificate as a policy or interpretation of the 14th amendment. A challenge to this has never happened but many constitutional scholars feel it would reverse this use. The authors of the 14th argued similar abuses and even stated that they didn't want just anyone to be given citizenship by the simple act of birth so they inserted "under the jurisdiction thereof" language. Illegal immigrants are NOT under our jurisdiction but are under their home countries jurisdiction - in other words a 18 year old illegal cannot be prosecuted for failing to register for the draft. A 18 year old citizen can because they are under our jurisdiction.
The closest the courts have ruled on is Wong Ark, in which the parents were here legally and with permission but were not citizens simply because they were Chinese.
I would love to see the SCOTUS rule on this issue and have only a few doubts that they would be forced to rule in a manner that stops this practice. If they don't they will open up a can of worms for illegals themselves having no rights to representation from their own countries, no consulate
So the key is the actions they take while here (entering illegally, fraudulent acts, tax violations, ID theft, etc are all under our jurisdiction (the act) and we have a right to punish a person commiting those acts while they are here. We do not have a right to tell a man who owns slaves in Sudan that he will be prosecuted for that act while here. But he wil go to jail if he tries that here.
However their lives, certain rights (upheld in world courts, with treaties, etc) are not under our jurisdiction so their children are not citizens.
But of course the open borders folks will think otherwise.
There are exceptions when dealing with terrorists, extraditable offenses, etc.
If an illegal immigrant did the EXACT same thing, then came back here we could not touch them for that crime. That is jurisdiction and how it relates to our 14th.
This is the same Republican party who spoke so vigorously of "family values" a few years ago!! The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking and tragic. It would also be funny if children weren't involved.
What happened to the sense of humanity and compassion, anyway??
Anyway, after these kind souls (their own description, of course) finish hammering out their own definition of terms like "marriage" and "family", the end result is that there is no remaining vestige of hypocrisy in any of their positions.
But just allow anyone on the left to even so much as dip a toe in this pool (of sewage) and the wing nuts are off screaming bloody murder.
Aster all, this is the natural order of things!
I'm just sayin'