Anchor Baby Boom

The fuss over birthright citizenship has been around as long as the 14th Amendment has -- and it's not going away anytime soon.

BY SUZY KHIMM | AUGUST 9, 2010

Hours after a federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's hard-line immigration law on July 28, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham had an idea. That evening, Graham, a South Carolina Republican, announced that he was thinking of introducing a bill to change the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

 

"People come here to have babies," he told Fox News. "They come here to drop a child. It's called 'drop and leave.' To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

On a night that otherwise might have disappointed anti-immigration conservatives, Graham's comments immediately shifted the focus of the heated debate from Arizona's law, which required police to check the status of suspected illegal immigrants, to "anchor babies" -- an alleged plot by immigrants to score citizenship and a place in the U.S. welfare state, first for their children and eventually for themselves. A handful of Graham's Republican colleagues have agreed that the issue warrants further investigation, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pressing for congressional hearings on what he described as the "burgeoning" business of birth tourism, and House Minority Leader John Boehner arguing Aug.8 on Meet the Press that it's "worth considering" repealing the 14th Amendment.

McConnell pointed to a Washington Post story about brokers who arranged for Chinese women to bear children at specialty "baby care centers" in the United States -- charging more than $14,000 for tourists to give birth in the U.S. so their children would be citizens. But there is scant evidence that there are elaborate schemes to exploit this loophole outside of a small handful of rich Chinese couples. And it's even less clear that illegal immigrants have deliberately decided to take advantage of the law en masse. About 4 million children in the United States have at least one parent who entered illegally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center: not an insignificant number, but still a very small fraction of the U.S. population, which is about 310 million.

Although Graham's ploy amounts to little more than high-voltage political theater, the Republican remarks reignited conservative scaremongering that illegal immigrants -- and even would-be terrorists -- were using the amendment to exploit the immigration system. The attacks tap into emotionally charged themes that have shaped the American immigration debate for decades -- and evoke the immigration battles of the 19th century, when the 14th Amendment was adopted.

As its opponents frequently point out, the U.S. version of birthright citizenship is unusually inclusive. Over the past few decades, Australia, Britain, France, and other industrialized countries have modified and restricted their own birthright laws in the face of similar concerns about immigration and the capacity of the modern welfare state. But supporters of U.S. birthright citizenship defend the provision as uniquely American. They recall the historical origins of the 14th Amendment, adopted during Reconstruction after the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party to protect the children of freed slaves.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne cites an impassioned 1859 defense of birthright citizenship by Carl Schurz, a German immigrant and Republican legislator. Birthright opponents denounced the law for naturalizing the country's "entire colored population," warning that a scourge of "Gipsies" would imperil the nation. Rushing to defend the law, Schurz declared: "All the social and national elements of the civilized world are represented in the new land ... their peculiar characteristics are to be blended together by the all-assimilating power of freedom. This is the origin of the American nationality, which did not spring from one family, one tribe, one country, but incorporates the vigorous elements of all civilized nations on Earth."

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: FREEDOM, LAW
 

Suzy Khimm is a staff reporter in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones. She has also contributed to the Economist, the New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal Asia.

AUGUST WEST

8:20 AM ET

August 10, 2010

While we're at it...

...Let's retroactively revoke the citizenship of the Confederate traitors and all their descendents. Waging war on America shouldn't let you retain your American citizenship.

Amnesty for Pedro from Juarez? Sure, just like amnesty for Johnny Reb.

 

MARCBOYER

10:24 AM ET

August 10, 2010

Birthright Citizenship

The important fact that is missing here is that most of the nations in the Western Hemisphere -- more than 30 of them--do offer "Jus Soli" or birthright citizenship. Does the US really want to change the law, and become significantly less progressive than Paraguay, Ecuador and Argentina?

 

JKOLAK

10:46 AM ET

August 10, 2010

The law should be children of

The law should be children of legal immigrants.

Even if the families are staying here permanently, if the presence is illegal, the children are the fruit of the corrupt tree and can't be legal either.

 

ASHOK2718

11:57 AM ET

August 10, 2010

How many of your so called anchor babies are involved

in this question ?

And if you are so worried about parents gaining citizenship from that make it stricter for the parents not the baby

because to me this principle sounds mighty awesome to be abandoned for short term political gains.

And if you are that much concerned you can even have conscription for such persons that should give you a measure of their love of country.

 

JON-PAUL

5:10 PM ET

September 6, 2010

Anchor babies involved

At the current time far, far too many. Statistics from the Pew Research Center show that from 2004 (2.7 million anchor babies born in USA) to 2008 (4.5 million anchor babies born in USA) hence, that is almost a 100% jump in less than four years.

The problem is that the USA is not afraid of making their parents citizens; greater than 90% of these babies and the illegal immigrant problem here in the USA is created by coming into the country illegally. Yes...I agree with you; the USA should have a tougher than nails policy pursuant to who they allow in and we're getting there; but how do you stop 800,000 illegals from entering your nation per year?

I personally believe that the USA should take the 2,400 mile border area and carefully place land mines with spotters and signs that clearly announce you are entering a Mine Field: Caution Explosives In Use.

However, be it as it may, the USA simply feels they are too "above" or too civil to do such a plausible and affective measure. Your last point is unclear to me: No one is giving "love" to this country-- period.

 

COLOCATION UTAH

11:54 PM ET

August 10, 2010

Utah Hosting ~ Utah Web Hosting ~ Colocation Utah

Really the important fact that is missing here is that most of the nations in the Western Hemisphere -- more than 30 of them--do offer "Jus Soli" or birthright citizenship. Thanks for this great read. Keep this good work.
colocation utah

 

ADAMJC22

4:58 PM ET

August 11, 2010

The question

Is whether the phrase "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."
Means that illegals can have a citizen child born to them. Because they are illegally in the country and therefore not legally subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

This is something that was raise in the supreme court in the 19th century but only in regards to the child of a legal citizen.
Would like to see the decision on that of an illegally present person.