Debate over birthright citizenship intensifies

Published on Wed, May 11, 2011

Since 1857, when a man named Dred Scott fought for his constitutional right to remain free after standing on free soil, the question of the Fourteenth Amendment and its citizenship provision has been brought to the table many times by others who also question when exactly they are free and citizens of the United States.

Even in the 21st century, this is not a decided issue.

Current public debate and even some pieces of proposed legislation in various states and in Congress are questioning whether the U.S. Constitution should be altered to deprive U.S. citizenship of those who are born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in the wake of the Civil War, grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the United States and forbids states from depriving U.S. citizens of “privileges and immunities.”

The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit citizens’ organization centralized in Washington, D.C., whose mission statement declares it dedicated to the cause of reforming immigration politics to serve a national interest. They said the only way to fix this issue is to start over.

“What we have said for a long, long time is that our current immigration policy doesn’t make any sense,” said Ira Mehlman, media director for FAIR. “It’s not serving the interest of the country. We keep trying to apply all kinds of different types of patches and add-ons. What we need to do is shut down the policy that exists and design one from scratch that actually serves the interest of the country.”

This includes changing the Fourteenth Amendment, or at least its current interpretation, especially with respect to the Citizenship Clause that overruled the Dred Scott decision. It declares, “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.”

“The question is, what does it mean to be subject to jurisdiction thereof?” Mehlman said. “Why were those words inserted there? … If you go back and read the debates that took place between the framers, they exclusively said that it should not apply to people who have allegiances to foreign sovereigns. I think you can make a reasonable case, that somebody who is a citizen of another country, who is also in the United States, without permission, here illegally, that person would not meet what the framers had in mind as being subject to the jurisdiction.”

His view is shared by members of Congress, including Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who stated recently on CNN his view that so-called “anchor babies,” those born in the United States to undocumented parents, should not be allowed citizenship.

Vitter recently introduced legislation that states a person born in the United States doesn’t automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is legal, a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) or an active member of the Armed Forces.

“When it comes to U.S. citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters; the circumstances of a person’s birth and the nationality of his or her parents are of equal importance,” Vitter said in his article. “I do not believe that our constitution confers citizenship on the children who happen to be born on U.S. soil to foreign tourists or illegal immigrants.”

In contrast, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), an organization in Washington, D.C., that provides policymakers, the media and the general public with information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy in U.S. society, stated on its website that ending this birthright citizenship would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. It would only increase the unauthorized population, because babies would be born “undocumented” or “illegal.”

“Ending birthright citizenship would mean that we’d have to determine the citizenship of every single child born in the U.S. by examining the documents of the parents,” said Michele Waslin, senior policy analysis at the IPC, in an email. “It would be similar to the confusing process used now by US citizens who give birth to children abroad.”

The IPC suggests legalizing current undocumented workers, stating that it would be good for the economy.

“Unauthorized immigrants are workers, taxpayers and consumers. If we deport them all, we will lose billions in tax revenues and we will lose jobs [because we will be losing consumers who help to support those jobs],” Waslin said.

She also advocated for the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The Fourteenth Amendment is an important part of our American tradition, and it is the cornerstone of civil rights and equal protection under the law,” Waslin said. “It was written and passed after the US fought a bloody civil war, and it was enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that never again could anyone create an underclass of persons based on the country of their parents’ birth or the color of their parents’ skin. In the U.S., we do not punish innocent children for the actions of their parents. Innocent babies are not born ‘illegal’ because their parents broke a law.”

In January 2010, the IPC, coupled with the Center for American Progress, conducted a study with Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda that estimates an additional $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in net revenue during the first three years after legalization of all current illegal immigrants. This is a result of the higher earning power of the would-be legalized workers, according to the study.

“Studies show that legalized workers have more rights and stability and therefore have better jobs, earn more and therefore pay more in taxes and consume more, all of which would boost U.S. GDP,” Waslin said.

Mehlman, however, disagrees with this argument.

Published in the BYU Daily News | Read Article