Ending birthright citizenship

November 4, 2005

I won’t pretend to be an expert in immigration law, but I can read the 14th Amendment as easily as anyone. And the last time I checked, it says that those “born…in the United States” are “citizens of the United States.” There’s not a lot of room for political maneuvering.

And yet, some Republicans in the House seem to believe otherwise.

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.

Birthright citizenship, or what critics call “anchor babies,” means that any child born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship, with exceptions for foreign diplomats. That attracts illegal aliens, who have children in the United States; those children later can sponsor their parents for legal immigration.

I realize that immigration “reform” is working its way up the policy ladder and is growing in political significance, but if House Republicans seriously plan to go down this road, they’re even further gone than I’d assumed.

Even if we put aside the question of merit, Tancredo and others think Congress can give the 14th Amendment a little touch up in an immigration-enforcement bill? And that would be legal?

“And that would be legal?”

Where have you been? Did we have to renounce the Geneva Conventions to torture people? No, we just invented the “illegal enemy combatant” — a novel category.

Today, over on Volokh Conspiracy, a legal blog, we have the spectacle of a conservative advocating that Bush bring back impoundment.

Under conservative tutelage, the rule of law is open to creative construction in the service of any foolish notion, as long as it is reactionary and reprehensible.

  • Why would they care if it’s legal? Passing illegal laws and then complaining about judicial activism is a core belief of the GOP.

  • Holy shit, talk about “sins of the father”. The GOP will go to no ends to overturn every single bit of democratic progress made in the last, like, 1000 years!

  • How do they get around that for the exception for diplomats kids? I suppose they could just make all illegal immigrants diplomats, though the immunity that goes along with it might be a problem.

  • Why would they care if it’s legal? Passing illegal laws and then complaining about judicial activism is a core belief of the GOP.

    Good point, pass the law, plays well with the base, then complain when it’s thrown out by those “activist” judges (and IIRC this may have been previously tried and ruled unconstitutional).

    Though it will be hard to complain about activist judges if the supreme court rules unanimously against it (which I think they would do).

  • Pete Wilson was making these same noises in California a few years ago. The result of his racist anti-immigrant policies was – Arnold notwithstanding – a permanent Democratic majority in the state. As goes California, so goes….

  • Legal? Of course it is with Instant Supreme Court from Wack-O. That’s right…FAR right! With Instant Supreme Court, you can time your election victories to those critical moments in history when multiple judges vacate the bench.

    Instant Supreme Court lets you fill the court with good ‘ol fashioned cronies who will make sure the legalities of your deeds and laws are never called into question.

    And as a special bonus, if you purchase Instant Supreme Court now, we’ll even throw in a free Election Overturner. That’s right, not only will the Supreme Court bend to your whim, but if you lose a close election(despite all your fraud and deception), the Court will simply make it go away.

    But wait, there’s more! If your scandals see the light of day and your ousted from power (either by act of Congress, or will of the people) don’t worry! Instant Supreme Court now comes with a Papal guarantee. Those justices certainly won’t be taking any orders from a pansy Democrat president, but from the Nazi in Chief in the Vatican.

    Order yours today for just three easy installments of, oh hell, just put it on credit, who gives a shit about high deficits!

  • Call me a kook but I feel the only reason why immigration is such a sudden hot-button issue is for the funds that would be allocated for any sort of movement to restrict illegal aliens from crossing the border.

    Hmmm. Which state as the largest border with Mexico? Which representatives are making the most noise? Who stands to gain the most from such plan? Well, by golly (smack forehead)…it’s the same people!

    One can only imagine how much money would be spent on contracted security along the Texas border.

  • I have one word for you all: GERMANY.

    Germany in the postwar era has behaved very well, they have a solid democracy and all that. A lot of jokes about German militarism (Jon Stewart made one when Sen. Boxer was on) are completely unfair in the current context.

    But one thing is certain: Germany’s laws regarding citizenship are (a) 100% racially based, and (b) completely inappropriate in the 20the century. Do you realize that if you are a Turk in Germany, and your father and grandfather are both born in Germany, you still can’t be a German citizen? That’s a disgrace.

    Even more of a disgrace would be if something like this goes through. If this happens, then the American Dream, the American Promise is truly over. Far from a land where anyone can come and succeed, it will simply become a backward bastion of supposed white privilege, falling behind every year as China and India etc. play catchup. This cannot happen.

  • Ahhhhh, Tom Tancredo! Michelle Malkin’s favorite Congresscritter….

    I think he hates crescents….

    Tancredo fights Flight 93 victims

    (Sorry for my long lag in posting – I was having troubles with my account.) Tancredo is back in the news again – God, he loves it! He wrote (and of course sent out to all the news media) a letter to the National Park Service protesting the “crescent” shape of a memorial to the Flight 93 victims and heroes to be built in Pennsylvania. Tancredo believes the shape – and the use of the word “crescent” in the name of the memorial – will serve as – get this, he’s serious – a “tribute” to the hijackers! After all, Islam uses a crescent. It’s somewhat disappointing that his bullying tactics weren’t rejected and that instead the NPS and the artist cravenly agreed to drop the word “crescent” from the design. This guy really scares some people. Quick: How many of you know the “official” name of the Vietnam Memorial designed by Maya Lin? That’s how many people would ever know the name of the Flight 93 Memorial by it’s “official” artist’s name. It would be nice if Tancredo were actually doing anything of substance, but he’s far too busy writing press releases.

  • The Republicans will never get the immigration thing figured out because they’re too damned bigoted to realize an elementary fact: potential immigrants are neither stupid nor uninformed. When they can make money here they come here, usually only seasonally, to improve their lives “back home”. Even those who have children (and hence citizen family members) here, for the large part, plan to return “home”. As their retablos make very clear, they fear America, its hospitals, social services and police; to the America is a cold, indifferent and hostile place.

    To “cut off” immigration, you don’t need to uproot the 14th Amendment. Nor do you need a fence between Mexico and the United States. Nor do you need armed troopers or mid-life crisis vigilantes standing shoulder-to-shoulder. All you need to do is decree it illegal to hire such immigrants and ENFORCE THAT LAW on CRIMINAL EMPLOYERS. If therre are no jobs for them they will not come. Of course then those same employers, if they want to stay in business, will have to pay a wage which Americans would work for, and that just might eat into their profits. Tough shit.

  • ” It would be nice if Tancredo were actually doing anything of substance, but he’s far too busy writing press releases.”

    Actually no – I’d prefer it if he just makes a lot of noise and doesn’t actually follow through on any of his incredibly wrong headed ideas.

    I can see a day when blackwater and halliburton are the two largest employers in this country at the rate we’re going.

  • Well said, Ed.

    We know, of course, that the same “capitalism” that prevents a living wage from being enacted and enforced will also prevent a real crackdown on criminal employers knowingly and intentionally hiring illegals — and all of this helps show the lie that Bush or any of his minions is a “compassionate conservative.”

    A Rethug family value is to see a situation that can give them leverage with their base, then create a completely illegal and illogical “solution” aimed at their enemies. It’s a two-fer: ingraciates them with their base of the Haves and Have-Mores and the American Taliban, on the one hand, and on the other hand it hammers the poor and middle classes and all other decent and law-abiding citizens. And Tancredo is just the latest poster child of this growing species “ugly American” blowhards.

    Rethug jingoism will be to the 21st Century in America that Jim Crow was to the 19th and 20th Centuries. Are the Rethug values what Americans really want to embrace and be practiced in their names? Not me, not for one damn more minute…

  • So according to Republicans “life” start at conception but citizenship doesn’t. And these are the “Christians” of the XXI century, if Jesus was born today in America, Republicans will have him deported in a minute.

  • I do not think the issue here is whether we should continue to have a Constitutional right of birthright citizenship. In fact, I think that is a good, valid debate to have and a change merits consideration.

    The issue here is that based on disingenous arguments and a blatantly false reading of the 1866 Senate floor debate, our leaders want to legislate around a right our forefathers voted 3 to 1 to give us. Would the new Court grant cert. to this legislation? If not, we have just lost a right. It is being proposed right now in an immigration bill.

    It also implicates our leaders’ world-view, and how they define their governing role and its limits.

    In fact, on this issue alone I would turn out any Congressperson on her ear for even considering such legislative trickery instead of using the system to repeal an amendment our most sacred governing document describes, and which they are sworn to uphold. The process is arduous specifically to ensure we gave a lot of thought before we started chopping away at the document and our rights. That legislators openly consider crafty ways to do this, with no public outcry, is worthy of concern.

    I have a six page detailed analysis of the 1866 floor debate that if requested I will post. I think it shows conclusively that this is a right we were given. Again, I am not advocating for anything other than protecting the Constitution. Mess with it lightly.

  • i agree…. you cant punish the kids for the law that is made….. and i love how congress just chooses to make a new law every time things dont go thier way. sooner or later they’re just going to make a law about us breathing…. im sure we do that wrong too. they say this is a democracy, i think not.

    • Comments are closed.