The Birthright Baby Business—————————————
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr
The U. S. Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that descendants of slaves, even those born in the United States and even the children of freed slaves, could not be American citizens. This ruling, known as the Dred Scott decision, was overturned after the Civil War when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. It holds that all persons born in the United States or its territories who are subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been the law of the land for over a century and a half. It needs to be reconsidered now because the situation it was intended to rectify no longer exists and it is now being abused. Back in the mid-nineteenth century it is doubtful that many persons, if any, would have imagined that anyone would sneak into this country illegally or visit legally for the purpose of giving birth to a baby who would be a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening and on a fairly large scale, demonstrating again the law of unintended consequences.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” is a legal expression which has to do with the inadmissibility of evidence obtained illegally. With all due respect to the innocence of babies born in the United States to mothers who are here illegally, that phrase comes to mind here. If the mother should not be here, neither should the baby have been born here.
The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to provide automatic citizenship to the children of black slaves. The slaves did not sneak into this country or visit the United States for purposes of having a baby. They were captured and brought here against their will and with the full knowledge and cooperation of the U.S. government. The very least that the U.S. government could do to rectify this injustice was to grant them and their children citizenship.
The government has no such moral obligation to those who violate our laws by entering this country illegally and giving birth to so-called anchor babies who are born U.S. citizens and who can then facilitate the eventual citizenship of the parents and other relatives. Nor should the children of foreign visitors to the U.S. who are born here be entitled to automatic citizenship, especially since it has become something of a business in the tourist industry overseas to arrange such maternal visits. Should the parent then eventually decide to emigrate here, having a child who is a U.S. citizen would facilitate the process. This is patently unfair to those who comply with the rules, apply and then wait patiently for their turn, if indeed it ever comes.
Fair or not, the Fourteenth Amendment is the law of the land. It was a well-intended law but it has served its purpose and is now being abused. Defenders of the status quo argue that it is somehow un-American and racist to support repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. But slavery was once legal and American, also. So was discrimination against women, gays and other minorities. Times change and the Constitution should not be impervious to change.
It can be argued that most people migrating to the United States, legally or otherwise do so in search of a better life but that is beside the point. A nation that cannot control its borders and entry points cannot adequately provide for the security of its citizens which is its primary responsibility. And with a growing population and slow growing economy, it is no longer a given that resources and jobs in the U.S. are unlimited. We cannot possibly provide economic opportunity and a better life for all the world’s needy and we have a responsibility first to our own needy.
Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by the legislatures of 38 states. It would require a formidable effort but it should at least be debated from the standpoint of whether or not it still serves the best interests of the United States.
August 22, 2015