Immigrant Rights Activists Defend 14th Amendment

Immigrant Rights Activists Defend 14th Amendment

Story tools

Comments

A A AResize

Print

Share and Email

 
The debate over illegal immigration has moved to a new territory: the U.S. Constitution.

Under the 14th Amendment, U.S. citizenship is granted automatically to nearly everyone born in the United States, including the children of undocumented immigrants. (There are a few exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats.) This Constitutionally protected right, called “birthright citizenship,” could be the next frontier for anti-immigration politicians and activists, who seek to deny citizenship to the U.S.-children of undocumented immigrants.

The latest attack on the 14th Amendment came from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who argued in an interview on Fox News that birth tourism—parents coming to the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child and getting that child U.S. citizenship—“cheapens American citizenship.” Graham said he supports an overhaul of the laws that govern who gets U.S. citizenship, the basis of which is the 14th Amendment.

The non-partisan Immigration Policy Center rejects Graham’s views on birthright citizenship. “We are talking about changing the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the cornerstone of civil rights,” said senior policy analyst Michele Waslin. “Repealing birthright citizenship would affect every American and every child born in the U.S.”

Changing the rules of citizenship would not only change the rules for the children of immigrants, but also for the children of citizens, notes Margaret Stock, an attorney who works with the Immigration Policy Center. If the 14th Amendment were revoked, a U.S. birth certificate would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship, so every child would have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic process to show that they meet all the requirements of citizenship. Such a change could cost billions of dollars.

“Before we change the rules, we need to do a cost-benefit analysis here,” said Stock. “There’s absolutely no attention being paid to the practicality.”

In order to change a Constitutional amendment, a second amendment must be passed to override the first one, which can be an incredibly difficult process. Two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures would have to approve the amendment, a level of consensus that observers say would be almost impossible to reach on an issue as contentious as immigration.

“It politically can’t be done,” said Bill Hing, a professor at the San Francisco School of Law. “It can’t be a serious proposal.”

Immigration experts also note that birth tourism, the process that Lindsey stated as his motivation, is in fact a rare occurrence.

“There’s maybe a very small group of people who are coming to the U.S. solely to give birth to a child,” said Stock. Changing the Constitution to punish this small group of people, Stock continued, is an overreaction. “You don’t hit a fly with a sledgehammer,” she said.

Birth tourism has stayed limited, Waslin said, because a child’s immigration status has no immediate effect on the status of the parents. Children who have U.S. citizenship have to wait until they turn 21 to sponsor their parents for a Green Card. “It doesn’t make much sense to have a child here for citizenship reasons,” she said.

For immigrant rights advocates, the larger argument against revoking birth citizenship is that it is a threat to civil rights. They note that the civil rights movement of the last century and a half has been derived from the 14th Amendment, and to repeal it would destroy much of our American identity.

“Never before have we the people amended the Constitution to make it less egalitarian,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “The provision of citizenship by right of birth was constitutionalized beyond politics and prejudices.”
 

Comments

 
Anonymous

Posted Aug 5 2010

The fourteenth amendment was to protect the children of legal immigrants seeking citizenship in the USA not as an automatic method meant to be used to take advantage of the right, benefits and programs provided for American citizens. The people of the world wanting to be an American and have legally applied for American citizenship may receive citizenship for their family after all qualification have been met. All children born in the USA must start with the rights of their parents given to them by their country of origin but no rights other then humane in the USA. Any cost for any service given to non citizens must be the responsibility of that person or their family or know relatives or sponsors.

Anonymous

Posted Aug 9 2010

I can understand why illegal immigrants and the people that support continued illegal immigration don't want the U.S. to change its laws about automatic birthright citizenship.

The current law awards enormous benefits at no cost to the illegal immigrant parents or their citizen child born in America.

On the other hand, with recent high levels of illegal immigration, this policy is greatly damaging to the finances and job prospects of current and future Americans. This policy places an enormous financial strain on American taxpayers. It causes our population to greatly increase in a matter of a few generations.

All other rich, First World countries have changed their law to stop offering this attractive "gift" to potential illegal immigrants. We need to do the same, and as quickly as possible.

We can't afford it and the illegal immigrants don't have any real, valid arguments to make when they claim that we "owe" their children automatic birthright citizenship.

Don't be fooled by the exaggerations and the guilt trips.


--jerseycityjoan, August 9, 2010

Resume Service

Posted Nov 18 2010

Hey, I just stopped by to visit your site and thought I'd say I enjoyed myself.

Sid Holding

Posted Nov 24 2010

Your interpretations in this article is written very well witch is likely instructive thank you for simplifing? this to me...

Resorna

Posted Mar 2 2011

i have visited this site a couple of times now and i have to tell you that i find it quite great actually. keep the nice work up! =p

resor

Posted Mar 2 2011

i have begun to visit this site a few times now and i have to say that i find it quite exeptional actually. continue doing what you're doing! :p

air conditioning

Posted Mar 13 2011

The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe in the future it'll do even better in those areas, but for now it's a fantastic way to organize and listen to your music and videos, and is without peer in that regard. The iPod's strengths are its web browsing and apps. If those sound more compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.

Disclaimer: Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of New America Media. NAM reserves the right to edit or delete comments. Once published, comments are visible to search engines and will remain in their archives. If you do not want your identity connected to comments on this site, please refrain from commenting or use a handle or alias instead of your real name.