14th Amendment scare tactics
Recently there has been quite a bit of buzz in the USA on revising the 14th Amendment (which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen), or somehow writing to law to prevent abuses of this policy. Right now, illegal immigrants are actually rewarded having children on US soil, and many pregnant tourists come to the USA for the very purpose of gaining US citizenship benefits for their children. The children are frequently called "anchor babies" because they give the entire family an anchor in the US. In some areas, it makes the family eligible to collect welfare, makes the family more difficult to deport, and when the child turns 21, he/she can legally sponsor the rest of the immediate family to immigrate.
The problem is, the 14th was never intended to be used this way. It was written in 1868, before there were any immigration laws. The point of it was to make certain that after the Civil War, freed slaves would be considered full citizens. There are no more slaves alive today, and it was never intended to be a loophole to abuse our laws. The writers could not have predicted the changing role of immigration, as well as the explosion of cheap travel and the growth of world tourism.
Just a few key facts on the issue:
* 1 in 12 babies born in the US are born to illegal immigrants. That's about 340,000 a year.
* An overwhelming number of Americans (67%) disagree with granting birthright citizenship to people in the country illegally.
* "Birth tourism", in which pregnant women travel to the US with the specific intention of having a US citizen baby, is a booming business and rapidly expanding.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham brought up the possibility of revising the 14th recently, he was vilified for it from all the usual corners. Senator Harry Reid said: “They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles” (however, hypocritically, Reid himself introduced a bill with that very same purpose back in 1993, apologizing for it later).
I have read a lot of debate on this topic back and forth in the last couple weeks. It really is difficult to defend the way the law is being abused. Essentially, all the defenders of the status quo revert to these arguments, which are easily refuted:
1. "It's racist" (the standard response when you don't have a real argument). ANSWER: Then why did the rest of the developed world, including the entire European Union, ditch their birthright citizenship laws years ago? Are they all racist? Among developed nations, the US stands alone in this regard.
Incidentally, constantly making false cries of "racism" have horribly backfired in Britain. I see the same thing happening in the US soon enough.
2. "It will require immigration agents in delivery rooms". This is not a straw man argument; this is what Senator John Kerry actually said recently, and other pundits have followed suit. ANSWER: Once again, Europe does not allow birthright citizenship, and there are no "immigration agents in delivery rooms".
Every baby born in Europe gets a birth certificate (like I got mine from Germany). What parents do not automatically get for their child is a document verifying citizenship. That they can get later from a records office if they can show that at least one parent is a citizen, or that they are legal residents (not tourists or illegal immigrants). There are some other exceptions, for example, children born to US servicemembers stationed in Germany are not automatically citizens (unless they have a German parent).
3. "It's un-American". ANSWER: this is an emotional statement that can't really be proved or refuted. However, it's ironic that accusations of being "un-American" don't fly with the political left in other areas (like when directed toward war critics or universal health care). It's also pretty plain that the lawmakers who wrote the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used the way it is being used, so I would consider the status quo to be "un-American" instead.
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school argued this very point in a recent law review:
"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry"
4. "It will result in 'stateless' people living in the US". ANSWER: I hear this talking point too, and it's a complete canard. It doesn't happen in Europe either, and it wouldn't happen here. Virtually every nation on Earth, including Mexico, practice "jus sanguinis" which means that children are citizens of their parents country even if born in another country. That is why right now, children born in the USA to Mexican parents have dual US/Mexican citizenship.
Bottom line is that it's a very bad policy that is completely archaic in this age of mass immigration, worldwide tourism, and cheap travel. Click here to continue reading...
