Will ending "birthright citizenship" help to control America's borders?

[astro]

Per the link below does ending birthright citizenship make sense as a border control measure?

If this is part of a consitutional amendment how are you going to bypass this with a statute?

GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
“There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the “unity dinners,” the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.

Most lawmakers had avoided the issue, fearing that change would require a constitutional amendment – the 14th Amendment reads in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
But several Republicans said recent studies suggest otherwise.
“There’s been recent scholarship that says we can do it by statute, and we ought to try,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who usually finds himself on the opposite side of immigration issues from Mr. Tancredo.
“How in the world can you explain that’s a good policy to have? It simply doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law,” Mr. Flake said.

[MilTan]

What is this “recent scholarship” that Mr. Flake is talking about? I don’t see how there’s much to quibble with in:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

And does it strike anyone else as ironic that a man who says “[h]ow in the world can you explain that’s a good policy to have? It simply doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law,” is proposing that they attempt to overrule the Constitution by statute?

---

As to the question in the OP, are there figures that indicate just how many people are exploiting “anchor babies,” as the article puts it? My impression has been that most illegal immigrants come in by themselves, and send money back home. Without those sorts of numbers, it’s hard to tell how much ending birthright citizenship would help.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@MilTan

As to the question in the OP, are there figures that indicate just how many people are exploiting “anchor babies,” as the article puts it? My impression has been that most illegal immigrants come in by themselves, and send money back home. Without those sorts of numbers, it’s hard to tell how much ending birthright citizenship would help.

Anchor Babies California…Googled

It is a huge problem.

[Bricker]

@MilTan

What is this “recent scholarship” that Mr. Flake is talking about? I don’t see how there’s much to quibble with in:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

And does it strike anyone else as ironic that a man who says “[h]ow in the world can you explain that’s a good policy to have? It simply doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law,” is proposing that they attempt to overrule the Constitution by statute?

Maybe the exceptions can be found in an emanation or a penumbra.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@astro

Per the link below does ending birthright citizenship make sense as a border control measure?

From one of the googled links:

Frosty Wooldridge says it’s time to take another look at the overall subject of “anchor babies.” He points to Ireland and notes that that nation, also facing an “anchor baby” invasion, got it right. It was happening there; children born to foreign parents in Dublin maternity hospitals accounted for 25 percent of total births in one year. People had come to Ireland to have an Irish child and therefore Irish citizenship.

Ireland was experiencing the same abuse of their immigration laws as the U.S. so they did something about it. In January 2003 the Irish Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that immigrant parents of an Irish born child could be deported. It was the first reversal of Ireland’s liberal policy of granting residency and possibly citizenship to anyone who had a baby in Ireland, including illegal aliens.

In June 2004 the Irish people took action: they voted birth right citizenship out of existence. The 27th amendment bill of the Irish Constitution now reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision, a person born on the island of Ireland who does not have at the time of birth of that person at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen, is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law.

If America followed Ireland’s lead and ended birth right citizenship, we would be removing a huge incentive that lures illegal aliens to our country.

IMHO, this is SHOULD NOT be seen as a “conservative” issue, but a nationalist issue.

[treis]

Most lawmakers had avoided the issue, fearing that change would require a constitutional amendment – the 14th Amendment reads in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
But several Republicans said recent studies suggest otherwise.
“There’s been recent scholarship that says we can do it by statute, and we ought to try,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who usually finds himself on the opposite side of immigration issues from Mr. Tancredo.

This ought to be an interesting argument.

[mswas]

The only solution to the immigration problem that isn’t totalitarian and ugly is to equalize economies.

Erek

[magellan01]

@mswas

The only solution to the immigration problem that isn’t totalitarian and ugly is to equalize economies.

Erek

Even if the fence is pretty and we plant nice flowers along the moat?

[magellan01]

@MilTan

What is this “recent scholarship” that Mr. Flake is talking about? I don’t see how there’s much to quibble with in:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

Some lawyers and scholars believe that the passage has to be taken in its entirety:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

I think they’re right. The “and” in the middle says that there are two qualifications for citizenship, not one.

[JRDelirious]

I’d be mighty curious about that “new scholarship”. While I could see the reasoning behind any country limiting jus solis citizenship only on those born of parents subject to its jurisdiction and legally present therein, the Constitution seems pretty stark on that issue. And on an issue such as this, I’d certainly want the new general rule to be in the Constitution itself, rather than in ordinary statute where it may be subject to tinkering based on the panic-of-the-season.

As to whether it would ease current illegal immigration problems… eeehhh, I dunno 'bout that… it sure seems to me the EU countries that do NOT have unconditional jus solis citizenship are NOT necessarily doing great on immigration issues, either.

And seriously, do they think folks who already enter illegally, taking high risks and subjecting themselves to abuse by the people-smugglers and by the hirers of illegal labor, are going to be dissuaded by the idea that a baby will not serve as anchor or entitlement voucher?

[Der_Trihs]

Won’t the result just be a bunch of nationless children ? Why would some other country consider foreign born children to be citizens ? What do we do if they turn back such people at the border, or are we the only ones allowed to control our borders ? Will creating a class of permanent noncitizens be such a good idea ?

How reliable are these figures ? Last I heard, the job of hospitals and doctors wasn’t to verify immigration status, so they weren’t even counting. The term “anchor baby” sounds like classic right wing rhetoric, after all.

[JRDelirious]

As to what magellan01 points out, part of the problem is that any person present in US territory IS presumed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA unless specifically excluded (aliens have to pay taxes [whether they DO or not is another issue], can be tried and prosecuted, etc.).

[treis]

@Bricker

Maybe the exceptions can be found in an emanation or a penumbra.

I actually believe this one, if it passes muster, can be pinned on the originalist school of interpetation. The 14th amendment was written to basically overturn Dred Scott and I doubt its original writers meant for it to be applied to illegal immigrants.

[Frank]

@magellan01

Some lawyers and scholars believe that the passage has to be taken in its entirety:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

I think they’re right. The “and” in the middle says that there are two qualifications for citizenship, not one.

So a person born and raised in the United States who happens to be living in, say, Luxembourg, is not a U.S. citizen?

[chrisk]

@This Year's Model

So a person born and raised in the United States who happens to be living in, say, Luxembourg, is not a U.S. citizen?

Umm… well, a person who holds a US passport and is living in Luxembourg (sp?) IS subject to the jurisdiction of the united states… in a way that doesn’t exactly apply to illegal immigrants in the US, or possibly their kids. I’m no big fancy lawyer and I’m not sure of the arguments either way, but I’m not sure this is a valid counterexample either.

[JRDelirious]

@treis

I actually believe this one, if it passes muster, can be pinned on the originalist school of interpetation. The 14th amendment was written to basically overturn Dred Scott and I doubt its original writers meant for it to be applied to illegal immigrants.

Good point, that would be a way to tackle it – could even lead to a “softer” meaning in that the requirement be not that the parent be already a citizen or on the way to being a citizen, but rather that his/her presence in the US be bona-fide legal ('cause otherwise you just do away with jus solis and I’d hate to see that happen, as it supports a nationality = bloodline ethos).

[Frank]

@chrisk

Umm… well, a person who holds a US passport and is living in Luxembourg (sp?) IS subject to the jurisdiction of the united states… in a way that doesn’t exactly apply to illegal immigrants in the US, or possibly their kids. I’m no big fancy lawyer and I’m not sure of the arguments either way, but I’m not sure this is a valid counterexample either.

I hadn’t thought of the passport thing. I withdraw my counter-example. On the bright side, I checked, and I did too spell Luxembourg correctly!

[JRDelirious]

@This Year's Model

So a person born and raised in the United States who happens to be living in, say, Luxembourg, is not a U.S. citizen?

As mentioned, he is still subject to the jurisdiction of the USA – for one thing, he has to file his 1040 every April. If he went to Luxembourg and announced he renounces his US citizenship and will seek EU citizenship, then he’s opting out.
.

[JRDelirious]

Ah, someone else had clarified already… :o

[magellan01]

@This Year's Model

So a person born and raised in the United States who happens to be living in, say, Luxembourg, is not a U.S. citizen?

Since this has been answered by others I ask you: what is your point? Do you deny that I stated the law correctly? Do you you think “and” means something other than “in additon to”? Do you not think that the law should be adhered to?

WHAT is your point? Really, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from. And please answer the three questions in the above paragraph.