Kim woods

Research Paper Example

H.R. 140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011

Introduction

The fundamental American civil right of giving U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Library of Congress).”

For the past few years, Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would end the practice of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants citing “anchor babies” (defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil”) as one of the main reasons why immigrants come to this country in the first place (Ward, Eric). Even though they have been unsuccessful to this point, they continue to pursue this issue because public opinion continues to grow against illegal immigration. Republicans latest attempt to finally resolve this loophole is H.R. 140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011.

Although illegal immigration has created several problems for the country as a whole, the Birthright Citizenship Act will not solve the current illegal immigration problem because it would not stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, it would create a new financial burden on the U.S. government, and because the law cannot be retroactive so there would be no immediate changes.

In this paper I will start by giving a brief explanation of the law, showing the purpose for it as well as which organizations are in support of the measure. From there I will discuss why I disagree with the law and the three reasons that support my point of view. Lastly, I will look at the oppositions view and their arguments for that view concluding with a brief review of the paper and restatement of why I disagree with this law.

Brief Explanation of the Birthright Citizenship Act

H.R. 140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 – was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Steve King, R-IA on January 5, 2011. It is co-sponsored by eighty-seven representatives and supported by the American Resistance Foundation and the John Birch Society (Participatory Politics Foundation). According to OpenCongress’ summary:

“This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.”

Supporters of this bill feel that the problem of illegal immigration can be easily improved with this law because it “amends the Immigration and Nationality Act” only but does not try to change the fourteenth amendment (Participatory). Instead it tries to clarify the sentence “subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States,” which is at the heart of the debate as to how birthright citizenship is authorized. The idea that this misinterpretation can be resolved by just amending the Immigration and Nationality Act can be best described by a 2003 holding from U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner who wrote, “A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it. … Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense (Feere, John).”

But the opposition, like the American Civil Liberties Union, feels that “the proposed legislation directly contradicts the long-standing 14th Amendment guarantee that all people born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction are citizens of the U.S.” Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Project, Dennis Parker, goes on to say, "Who can be a citizen of the United States and enjoy the equal protection of the law should never be subject to the political and discriminatory whims of the day." The article also points out “if enacted, the bills are unlikely to survive legal scrutiny since the Constitution can only be changed by amendment, not by state or federal statute (ACLU).”

Arguments against the Birthright Citizenship Act

As I stated earlier, illegal immigration is a problem in this country and I truly believe reform is needed but the Birthright Citizenship Act, or any act similar to this, will not be the answer. I strongly feel that these types of laws will not solve our current illegal immigration problem because it will not stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, it will only create a new financial burden on the U.S. government, and also because laws cannot be retroactive so there will be no immediate changes which is what the public is seeking.

One of the main arguments for passing a bill that clarifies the interpretation of the fourteenth amendment is that it would end birthright citizenship thus eliminating “anchor babies.” Proponents of this and other similar bills feel that by removing this incentive, illegal immigrants will be deterred from coming to America and that alone will drastically solve our problem. But I feel this argument is terribly flawed. Data shows that the trend of immigrants coming from Mexico goes up and down according to the economic health of the U.S. and it is not solely reliant on immigrant mothers wanting to have their children on U.S. soil. This is evidenced by a Pew Hispanic Center report that showed immigration from Mexico “dropped by about one-third between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, coinciding with the recession precipitated by the dot-com bust and the Sept. 11…terrorist attacks.” The numbers also show that immigration from Mexico climbed back up as the economy recovered but then fell again starting in 2006-2007, right before the recession, and has continued to fall as the economy has worsen (Jacobson, Louis). Thus, it seems the real driving force of illegal immigration isn’t to bear children on US soil; rather, it seems to be the pursuit of economic opportunities.

Another strong argument that backs the theory that immigrants come here to work and not just have babies was presented by Roberto Suro, a communications and journalism professor at the University of Southern California who specializes in Hispanic issues. He stated, "All the data suggests that people come here to work -- especially Mexicans, and especially illegal Mexicans. If people came here because they were looking for work, you would expect to see the flow fluctuate with employment opportunities -- and that’s what the data shows. If people came here to have babies, the flows would be pretty constant, and they are not (Jacobson)." Thus, changing the language of the 14th amendment to try and solve this anchor baby problem is not the solution to illegal immigration; instead, making it more difficult to obtain a job in the United States is the solution.

Another problem that would arise from ending birthright citizenship would be the additional cost and bureaucracy parents would have to go through to prove their child is authorized to receive a birth certificate. Currently the federal government charges $600 to verify citizenship in addition to legal fees that can range from $600 - $1000 (Anderson, Stuart). Also, the bureaucracy that would have to be created would mean the government would most likely have to “create a national registry of citizens” and hire “hundreds if not thousands of immigration attorneys or similarly skilled immigration examiners” to handle the thousands of unnecessary cases that this law would create (Stock, Margaret D.). And considering there is no solid data to suggest immigrant women come here specifically to have children, the costs of implementing this law would outweigh its benefits.

Lastly, I feel that pursuing these types of laws will not produce the outcome that anti-immigration proponents are looking for. According to the Constitution, Congress cannot create any ex post facto laws meaning they cannot criminalize “conduct that was legal when originally performed (Cornell University).” And this bill clearly states that in section.2.(b) where it says, “The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act (Sunlight Foundation).” Since this law can only be applied to babies born after the date it is sign, there would not be any decline until after a few generations have passed. And that’s if you agree with the theory that “anchor babies” are the main reason for the increases in illegal immigration. But in the meantime, every child born before this law would continue to be recognized as an American citizen, with all the benefits that come with in, and they would be able to remain in this country even if both of their parents are immigrants. For all these reasons then, the Birthright Citizenship Act is a poor piece of legislation that should be rejected.

Arguments for the Birthright Citizenship Act

But to truly make an informative decision on this issue one should look at the oppositions view points and arguments. Proponents of this bill feel that it is unfair to allow illegal immigrant babies the right to become an American citizen solely on the fact that they were born on U.S. soil. As stated earlier, they feel that this misinterpretation of the fourteenth amendment has created the phenomena of “anchor babies.” They use statistical data such as the one provided by a Pew Hispanic Center report that showed that 3.8 million undocumented immigrants have at least one child who is a citizen. And most children of unauthorized immigrants - 73 percent in 2008 - are U.S. citizens by birth; up from 63 percent in 2003 (Jacobson). There was also a survey cited in a 2006 article from the Dallas Morning News that showed that as many as 70 percent of the roughly 16,000 women giving birth annually at the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas were immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally (Jacobson).

These statistics suggest that birth among illegal immigrants is large and growing but there is no clear evidence to show that immigrant women are coming here primarily to have children. As I showed earlier, the data points toward the economy as the driving factor for the flow of immigration from Mexico. Also, there is another report that would further debunk this theory. According to numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, they show that in four separate age ranges between 20 and 40, undocumented men significantly outnumber undocumented women (Jacobson). This suggests that more people come to the United States illegally to work than to bear children. This shows the logic behind this law is not well founded.

But there is one final, and important, argument for this bill and it refers back to the misinterpretation of the fourteenth amendment. Proponents of this bill feel that reverting back to the “original intent and meaning of the “subject to jurisdiction” clause” will finally “straighten out once and for all whether children born within the borders of the United States are automatically granted full citizenship and all the accompanying privileges and immunities (Shibler, Ann).” They use the argument that “children born to a foreign diplomatic officer are not U.S. citizens because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and neither are illegal immigrants (Wilson, J. Stephen). They also like to point out that the “U.S. constitution (was) never intended for everyone born here to be citizens…the amendment was originally targeted to give citizenship to former slaves (Wilson).” They go on to say, “the authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration (Will, George F.).”

But even this point of view is flawed. According to James C. Ho, who did extensive research into the debate in the House of Representatives back in 1866, “nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens. To the contrary, text and history confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches all persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws, regardless of race or alienage (Ho).” He goes on to point out that any doubt about whether illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction or not was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe (1982). He writes:

“By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Texas cannot deny free public school education to undocumented children, when it provides such education to others. But although the Court splintered over the specific question of public education, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens (Ho).”

Because the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction, this constitutional argument made by proponents of the law is flawed. Given the proponent’s arguments are flawed, this law should not be passed.

Conclusion

In this paper I gave a brief explanation of the law and showed the purpose for the law as well as which organizations are in support of the measure. From there I discussed why I disagree with the law and gave you three reasons that supported my point of view. Lastly, I looked at the opposition’s point of view and their arguments for that view while countering their arguments with logical facts.

Although I cannot deny that illegal immigration has created several problems for the country as a whole, I don’t believe the Birthright Citizenship Act or any similar act will solve this growing problem. On the contrary, I believe enacting such laws would only worsen our illegal immigration problem because it would not stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, it would create a new financial burden on the U.S. government, and since the law cannot be retroactive there would be no immediate changes. And in the process it would undermine a civil right that is afforded to all American citizens.

Works Cited

ACLU. "ACLU Urges State Lawmakers To Reject Discriminatory Bills That Subvert 14th Amendment." American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 05 Jan. 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-urges-state-lawmakers-reject-discriminatory-bills-subvert-14th>.

Anderson, Stuart. "Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Be Costly for Americans." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 09 Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2012/03/09/ending-birthright-citizenship-would-be-costly-for-americans/>.

Cornell University. "Ex Post Facto." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto>.

Feere, John. "The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship." Center for Immigration Studies. 01 Apr. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://cis.org/Alleged-Costs-of-Ending-Universal-Birthright-Citizenship>.

Ho, James C. Defining “American:” Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment. Made in America: Myths & Facts About Birthright Citizenship. Immigration Policy Center, 01 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://myusai.org/immigration-reports.html>.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. "Anchor Baby." American Heritage Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 01 Jan. 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=anchor+baby&submit.x=31&submit.y=27>.

Jacobson, Louis. "Fact-checking the Claims about 'anchor Babies' and Whether Illegal Immigrants 'drop and Leave'" Politifact.com. 06 Aug. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/>.

Library of Congress. "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875." Statutes at Large, 39th Congress, 1st Session. Library of Congress. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl>.

Participatory Politics Foundation. "U.S. Congress - H.R.140 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011." H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Sunlight Foundation. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/show>.

Shibler, Ann. "A Bill to End Automatic Citizenship for Babies of Illegal Immigrants." The John Birch Society. John Birch Society, 01 Feb. 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jbs.org/legislation/a-bill-to-end-automatic-citizenship-for-babies-of-illegal-immigrants>.

Stock, Margaret D. Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s Birthright Citizenship Law. Made in America: Myths & Facts About Birthright Citizenship. Immigration Policy Center, 01 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://myusai.org/immigration-reports.html>.

Sunlight Foundation. "U.S. Congress - Text of H.R.140." Opencongress.org. Participatory Politics Foundation. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/text>.

Ward, Eric. A New Nativism: Anti-Immigration Politics and the Fourteenth Amendment. Made in America: Myths & Facts About Birthright Citizenship. Immigration Policy Center, 01 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://myusai.org/immigration-reports.html>.

Will, George F. "An Argument To Be Made About Immigrant Babies and Citizenship." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Mar. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html>.

Wilson, J. Stephen. "Birthright Citizenship and Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Examiner.com. 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.examiner.com/article/birthright-citizenship-and-comprehensive-immigration-reform-part-i>.