In the past year, one of the subtexts of the immigration debate has been the issue of children born to foreign workers, both legal and illegal. The traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been virtually anyone born within the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen with full privileges and voting rights when they come of age, regardless of whom their parents are. Critics contend this has become a powerful incentive for pregnant mothers to enter the U.S. any way they can. Once their children are born, foreign parents automatically move up the priority list when applying for permanent residency visas or "green cards." Many critics use the somewhat pejorative term "anchor babies" to describe this situation.A possible solution would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to remove automatic citizenship for children born to foreign nationals, which would mirror the policy of many other countries around the world. However, passage of such an amendment would be rather difficult and hasn’t garnered much political support to date.So some critics have suggested we should re-examine the common understanding of the 14th Amendment. In a historical context, automatic citizenship was supposed to apply to former slaves and their descendants, and native Indians, not to people who migrate to the U.S. after the amendment passed, the argument goes.After giving the issue a great deal of thought, I have to admire the creativity of the argument but have come to conclude it’s fatally flawed. Here’s why.First, consider the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that’s the focus of this issue:"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."The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The traditional belief is that Congress wanted to make clear that children of foreign diplomats who might be born here don’t gain immediate U.S. citizenship. Foreign dignitaries who, by treaty, are protected by diplomatic immunity are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and so are excluded by the amendment.The federal courts have ruled the same phrase also protects children of U.S. diplomats and those serving in the military overseas. Since those U.S. citizens are still "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government when serving abroad, any children born in a foreign country immediately gain U.S. citizenship.Some legal experts believe the phrase also can apply to just about every foreign national in the U.S. Their position is easiest to understand in relation to illegal immigrants. Those who enter the country without permission are entitled to none of the privileges of a U.S. citizen. Illegal immigrants should be afforded the same humane rights of any person (emergency medical care, due process of law, etc.), but the only authority the U.S. should have over them is to punish them for any crimes committed against the U.S. and then to deport them, these critics contend.Some believe "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" also could apply to legal foreign tourists and immigrants, at least those who don’t have permanent residency visas. Such legal visitors are here strictly at the benevolence of the U.S. and can be ordered to leave at anytime for any reason. Their argument is "subject to the jurisdiction" implies someone who not only must answer to the U.S. government but also is entitled to certain rights and privileges beyond humane treatment. The right to live here permanently and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship might be the touchstones of this approach. Children of a foreign national lacking those two rights wouldn’t be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government and therefore wouldn’t gain automatic citizenship.I think the flaw in the argument as applied to legal foreign visitors is somewhat obvious. If they aren’t subject to U.S. authority, then how can the U.S. government grant them permission to be live and work here temporarily in the first place? The two would seem to go hand-in-hand.But what about illegal immigrants? The real problem with this new interpretation of the 14th Amendment is it would treat such people a lot like foreign diplomats. Being subject to the authority of the U.S. touches on a lot of issues other than citizenship for children. We wouldn’t be able to force illegal immigrants to comply with any contracts they sign, demand they pay their debts or sue them for wrongful injury. We couldn’t compel them to pay taxes on any income they earn (which U.S. citizens are supposed to do, even if their income comes from illegal activities). We couldn’t draft them into the military during a foreign invasion or a time of national crisis.I don’t know if illegal immigrants would be willing to give up citizenship for their children if they could forego these other obligations as well. But I imagine many U.S. citizens would have trouble with the trade off. And it’s not like we can take away automatic citizenship for children but demand these other obligations without a constitutional amendment. Either illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or they aren’t. I don’t think there’s much ground in-between.

Posted in: Immigration |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.