WA GOP takes a controversial stance on Anchor Babies
One of the news items on Orbusmax was this:
State GOP: No automatic citizenship for kids born in U.S. to illegal immigrants
The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
This is not a new idea…
The state party approved a similar platform plank at its 2006 convention that proved controversial. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes citizenship for all persons born in the United States.
"Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about," state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. "And it's certainly a very defensible position. It's not at all something that's based on race concerns. It's a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on."
And it is going to be just as controversial, and may continue to help the Democrats brand the Republicans as xenophobes and racists.
While it is a popular notion with the anti illegal immigration set, the fact is that there is not much congressional support for a Constitutional Amendment, which near as I can tell is what this would take.
Any legislation will immediately be challenged as being in violation of the 14th, and my personal belief is that the SCOTUS will uphold the conventional notion.
It is not to say the idea is without merit. While pro immigration groups scoff at the notion, the facts actually support the critics. it may hurt some peoples notions, but immigrants do sometimes come here pregnant hoping to deliver while on US soil so as to have the edge in immigration.
It is estimated that as many as 380,000 babies each year fall into this category, and may include not just illegals, but also tourists on a tourist visa (as opposed to a work visa).
The history of the 14th Amendment does support the critics to a degree:
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
I say "to a degree" because the history of many Constitutional provisions is open to interpretation, which is how we got Roe v Wade, and porn as protected free speech.
What I see here is an attempt to redefine the State's agenda to adopt a more conservative stance. This may or may not be good, I won't make a call.
But it is obvious that the other side will be more than happy to exploit it as they always have.
Time will tell whether this will help secure the State GOP's platform, or it's coffin.
On June 2, 2008 at 12:50 pm, Perri Nelson wrote:
The problem is the interpretation of the clause "and subject to their jurisdiction". Opponents of anchor babies argue that by virtue of their coming to the U.S. illegally, illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I am an opponent of illegal immigration, but I can’t quite agree with this view, because if an illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they can’t be prosecuted and deported for violating our immigration laws.
The state department takes a different view. Their interpretation is that the "an subject to their jurisdiction" clause means that the children of diplomats and others with "diplomatic immunity" are not citizens if born here. I tend to agree with this view as it makes more logical sense.
Only a constitutional amendment will really fix this problem, and as you say that’s a long uphill battle. This is what comes of messing with the original intent of the founders, although the motives behind the 14th amendment are just and true. Unintended consequences of the 14th amendment are many, and anchor babies are just one of them.