NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
I've been in the trenches fighting about this topic for at least 20 years and the only thing gained is being tagged a racist, so be it. And before anyone goes off on me for use of the term "anchor baby", our government coined that term for all of the reasons explained below.
Here's the facts:
HISTORY
Here's the facts:
HISTORY
The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, was crucial in defining American citizenship in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Before this amendment, there was significant ambiguity surrounding the citizenship status of formerly enslaved people and their children. The amendment aimed to ensure that all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents' status, would be recognized as citizens. Here’s a closer look at the reasoning and significance of its key phrase, with sources for further exploration.
Background and Purpose
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first legislative attempt to secure citizenship for all people born in the United States, especially those of African descent. However, lawmakers feared that this act could be overturned by the courts or repealed. The ratification of the 14th Amendment was, therefore, intended to embed these citizenship rights within the Constitution, beyond the reach of ordinary legislation.
According to historian Eric Foner, the amendment’s citizenship clause was a direct response to the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens. Congress and the drafters of the amendment intended to permanently overturn this decision and to grant full citizenship rights to formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants (Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution, 2019).
The Citizenship Clause: "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
The first section of the 14th Amendment begins with a citizenship clause:
This language was deliberate and groundbreaking. It provided a broad, birthright citizenship principle that applies to everyone born on U.S. soil, except for specific cases (e.g., children of foreign diplomats, certain indigenous peoples who were under tribal rather than U.S. jurisdiction at that time).
The term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" further clarifies who is entitled to birthright citizenship. This phrase indicates that anyone born in the U.S. and not owing allegiance to another country would be considered a citizen. This inclusion was vital to cover freed slaves, ensuring their children would have no ambiguity in their rights or status.
According to legal scholar Garrett Epps, this clause was added to guarantee that no person born in the U.S. would be denied citizenship based on race or heritage, a significant departure from the country’s previous legal frameworks that restricted citizenship based on race (Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America, 2006).
Intent and Impact
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was designed to settle, once and for all, the status of former slaves and their children as U.S. citizens. It also symbolized a broader commitment to equality and universal principles of human rights, moving the United States closer to a nation based on "birthright citizenship" rather than selective citizenship tied to race or status. The clause has been reaffirmed in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Supreme Court upheld the principle of birthright citizenship for children born to foreign parents residing in the U.S.
The adoption of this clause was a foundational change in U.S. citizenship policy, ensuring an inclusive and enduring definition of citizenship that would not be subject to racial discrimination or political reversal.
Citations for Further Reading
- Foner, Eric. The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.
- Epps, Garrett. Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America. Henry Holt and Co., 2006.
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
These sources delve deeper into the historical motivations and lasting legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment, particularly its impact on defining American citizenship.
CURRENTLYThe 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, originally intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants, has come under scrutiny in recent years in discussions about immigration and citizenship. Some argue that the amendment’s intent has been "abused" or "exploited" by individuals who enter or remain in the United States unlawfully and give birth to children who, as a result of the amendment, automatically gain U.S. citizenship. Critics claim that this allows parents who are not lawfully present in the U.S. to establish a form of residency through their children, often called "anchor babies" by opponents of the practice. Here is an analysis of these views and the legal and historical context of the debate.
Birthright Citizenship and Current Controversy
The clause in question — “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” — establishes birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., with few exceptions. This is known as "jus soli" (right of the soil) and is unique compared to countries with "jus sanguinis" (right of blood), where citizenship is typically based on the nationality of one's parents.
Critics argue that birthright citizenship can be "exploited" when individuals who are unlawfully in the U.S. have children, creating a scenario in which the child's citizenship provides a potential pathway for the parents to obtain residency or citizenship. However, it is important to clarify that having a U.S. citizen child does not automatically grant a pathway to residency or citizenship for the parents; rather, the child cannot sponsor their parents for lawful residency until they turn 21, and even then, the process is neither automatic nor guaranteed.
Legal and Historical Context
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to create a clear pathway to citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, ensuring equal rights and eliminating ambiguities in citizenship law. In 1898, the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark interpreted the clause to apply broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children of foreign nationals who are in the U.S. legally or otherwise, except for specific exclusions like children of diplomats. This ruling has shaped the modern interpretation of the amendment, making birthright citizenship a defining feature of American immigration policy.
Arguments and Concerns
- Concerns Over "Anchor Babies": Opponents argue that individuals who come to the U.S. to give birth, or who remain unlawfully, may seek to "anchor" themselves in the U.S. by having citizen children. They believe that this creates incentives for unlawful immigration and strains public resources.
- Family Reunification Pathways: Immigration law allows for "family reunification," but as mentioned, this is a lengthy process. Critics argue that families use a child's citizenship status as leverage, eventually seeking legal residency once the child becomes eligible to sponsor them. While some view this as a strategic use of citizenship laws, others argue that the system is not inherently being "abused" but rather used within its legal limits.
- Amendment Interpretation Debate: Some argue for a reinterpretation or amendment of the 14th Amendment, advocating for citizenship criteria that consider the legal status of the parents. Others argue that the current interpretation aligns with the U.S.’s historical commitment to inclusivity and equal protection under the law, a principle seen as central to American identity.
- Economic and Social Impact Concerns: The economic and social impact of birthright citizenship remains a contentious issue. Critics argue that it imposes financial strains on social services and creates logistical complications in immigration law. Proponents counter that children born in the U.S. should have equal rights regardless of their parents’ immigration status and that they contribute to the nation's diversity and economy.
Policy Responses and Proposed Changes
Efforts to limit birthright citizenship through legislative or executive action have faced legal and constitutional challenges. For instance, while there have been proposals in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, such changes would likely face Supreme Court challenges. These debates continue to underscore the tension between historical precedent, the original intent of the amendment, and contemporary views on immigration.
Summing Up
While the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause was created with clear, egalitarian objectives, contemporary immigration patterns have brought its application into debate. Some argue that it has unintended consequences that provide an indirect foothold for individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully. However, altering this interpretation would require either a constitutional amendment or a significant reinterpretation by the Supreme Court, both of which would mark a fundamental change in American citizenship law.
