Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment...

You know, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were enacted as part of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, to guarantee that "Negroes" (as African-Americans were then known) could never again be slaves (13th Amendment, ratified in 1865), would be recognized as full-fledged citizens (14th Amendment, ratified in 1868), and could not be denied the right to vote based upon race (15th Amendment, ratified in 1870).

The 13th Amendment was simple, two sentences. It abolished slavery.

The 14th Amendment was a little more far-reaching, but the current controversy about "anchor babies" revolves around Section 1, which simply states:

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.

The primary purpose of Section 1 was to guarantee the citizenship of African-Americans who were born here, yet denied rights as citizens because of their race and their former status as slaves. In 1857, the United States Supreme Court, in the shameful Dred Scott Decision, held that African slaves and their descendants within the United States were NOT protected by the Constitution and could NEVER become citizens. The court also ruled that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court and that slaves, as the private property of their owners, could not be taken from their owners without due process.

Essentially, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned much of the Dred Scott Decision and codified into law that former slaves and their descendants were citizens by birth and guaranteed them that citizenship and the rights that go with it.

It was never intended as "the anchor baby" Amendment; it was early civil rights legislation, enacted just after the Civil War.

Sixteen years after it was ratified, in 1884, the Supreme Court visited the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that American Indians who voluntarily quit their tribes did NOT automatically become U.S. citizens, even though they were born on American soil.

The "anchor baby" issue was a non-issue until 30 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified when the Supreme Court (the same Supreme Court that had ruled 41 years earlier that African-Americans could NEVER become U.S. citizens) re-visited the 14th Amendment.

First, some history that led to this second visit by the Supreme Court to the issue of the 14th Amendment.

In 1882, in a blatantly racist move, the United States Congress had enacted the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited Chinese from coming here or becoming naturalized citizens. It allowed Chinese who were already here to stay, but denied naturalization to them. Additionally, if they left the United States, they could not return. This law was challenged and, ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court.

Interpreting Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in 1898, that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants were citizens because they had been born on U.S. soil. No distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was ever made at the time.

No subsequent court cases have EVER decided whether or not the children of legal or illegal immigrants are or are not citizens, under the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, intended to guarantee rights to African-Americans, has been bastardized by those who interpret the Amendment's original intent to include automatic citizenship to anyone born here.

This is insane.

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment,

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The original author's intent seems pretty clear here -- the law wasn't intended to automatically extend citizenship to persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, family members of ambassadors, or diplomats.

Let's say that I have a fictional wife, and that my fictional wife is fictionally pregnant. We are visiting England, and my fictitional wife goes into labor and our fictional child is born there. That fictional child would NOT be a British citizen; he or she would be an American citizen, born to American parents, in Great Britain.

Perhaps it is time for the Supreme Court to visit, yet again, the issue of the 14th Amendment and settle the issue, once and for all.

In the meantime, a proposed California iniative, the California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010, Initiative 09-0010, has been introduced to try and rectify the situation, by limiting and/or eliminating public benefits to illegal alien mothers and their children. While to some this may seem draconian, it is based upon existing law in five other states -- Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Arizona, and is closely patterned after the existing Oklahoma law. The California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010 has recently begun the signature collection process to qualify it for the ballot.

Ted Hayes, the African-American activist and advocate for the homeless who unsuccessfully ran against Congresswoman Maxine Waters in 2008, a supporter of the proposed iniative, says it best:

American black men will stop the birth tourism problem connected to the 14th Amendment.

That law was meant for West African slaves, not Latinos crossing the border illegally.

Hayes adds, referring to the ballot iniative,

The Latinos want to make this about race. I’ll make this about race. The sponsors of this bill are not racists, they’re Americans and we stand with them.

Former U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez, a supporter of the ballot iniative, correctly notes,

The 14th Amendment was a way for this country to overcome slavery. Our current national policy doesn’t even allow diplomats in this country to gain citizenship through birth.

Isn't it time for this gross mis-interpretation/mis-application (IMO) of the 14th Amendment to either be ended, once and for all, or upheld by the Supreme Court?

Something for the ponder...

Skip