Fears Surface Over Bill Denying Citizenship to Some U.S.-Born Babies
Eastern Group Publications, Inc., News Report, Selene Rivera, Posted: Feb 27, 2006
LOS ANGELES – Legislation denying citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants residing in the United States, sits quietly in Congressional subcommittee while the Senate gears up to debate a second law, HR 4437, that immigration right's groups say unfairly hurts undocumented immigrants.
And although the citizenship legislation, HR 4437, the "Border Protection and Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration 2005 Control Act," does not appear to be moving quickly, many undocumented immigrants say they fear that situation could quickly change.
"At my age, my biggest dream is to have a child, but I don't want him to suffer what I've suffered as an illegal," says Los Angeles resident, Cecilia Ruiz.
"I know that for now such an initiative is not law, but I worry about my future and having to leave my child behind if I'm ever deported," says the 30-year- old woman.
Introduced last year by the author of HR 4437, Republican James Sensenbrenner, and endorsed by other Republican elected officials including Tom Tancredo, Nathan Deal, J. D. Hayworth and Jack Kingston, "The Citizenship Reform Act" proposes that only children born to American citizens, naturalized citizens or permanent residents be given U. S. citizenship.
Currently, the U.S. automatically grants citizenship to all those born in the country, except children born to diplomats subject to international treaties.
Alleging that close to 300,000 undocumented woman cross the border every year to give birth to children in the U. S. as a ploy to get US citizenship and that the cost to taxpayers for medical and prenatal care is too high, Republicans endorsing the anti-citizenship measure say they will not rest until they see the legislation become law.
A possible reemergence of the proposition keeps activists pro-immigrant groups worried and alert, with some saying they are prepared for its return due to the recent anti-immigrant wave of "vigilantes," extremists" and "unconstitutional laws" being pushed in the country.
"An initiative that denies citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants goes against the Constitution," says Angela Sambrano, president of the Central America Resource Center.
According to the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
"The legislation would change the U. S. Constitution. That's why it hasn't advanced to the Senate. But we know the Republicans in favor of this act will come back to try and take away the rights to citizenship and we will be there to fight them," says Sambrano.
According to the reform's sympathizers, not only prenatal care to undocumented immigrants is expensive, but the automatic citizenship to those children is an invitation for immigrants to cross the border illegally looking for citizenship through their "anchor babies" who, at the age of 21, according to the law, can apply residency status for their parents and siblings not born in the U.S.
To deny a child the right to be a citizen because his mother is undocumented is something we [activists] will not tolerate," says Michelle Waslin of National Council of La Raza.
"Most women don't plan to get pregnant so that in 21 years they can become residents," said Ruiz. "That's crazy... if I wanted it that way, then I would be getting married to a 'gringo,' so I don't have to wait that long for my legal residence..." she says.
Sambrano points out that it is important Senators not let the proposal advance to the Senate's judicial committee, and she urges the immigrant community and supporters of human rights to fight the anti-immigrant wave in the country. Their voices, she says, also need to be heard.
Sympathizers of the measure argue that implementation of the "Citizenship Reform Act" is necessary because undocumented families with citizen children benefit from too many taxpayer supported benefits, such as access to hospitals, medical care, food stamps and other services, without contributing enough to the financial cost.
Pro-immigrant organizations such as the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Hermandad Mexicana and Centro Azteca, say they will continue to fight for fair immigration reform.
Related Stories:
Made in America, But Not American?
I'm No 'Anchor Baby,' I'm an American
The 'Paper Ceiling' -- Undocumented Youths Face Barriers at the Brink of Adulthood
Immigration < NAM Content
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Jean Brown Harrell, formerly Garcia on Mar 07, 2006 at 14:43:15 said:
All the comments about the 14th Amendment PROHIBITING automatic citizenship at birth to anchor babies of illegal aliens who are born on U.S. soil is right on target.
The authors of the 14th Amendment stated that it would NOT apply to "foreigners, aliens" and further stated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant owing no alligiance whatsoever to a foreign government and owing complete and total allegiance to the U.S. government so as to be completely and totally under 100% of the U.S. government's jurisdiction. The ONLY people who have this kind of allegiance is citizens of the U.S. whether born or naturalized, and you MIGHT possibly stretch it to include the U.S. born children of legal permanent residents in the process of naturalization. An illegal alien is subject to the total and complete jurisdiction of their home country's government, Mexico, for example, or Mexico would NOT be trying to get their illegals in this country to vote in the mexican elections in Mexico. The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives approved this interpretation of the 14th Amendment when they voted on it and the states also. Everybody back then UNDERSTOOD that this is what the 14th Amendment meant. There was NO disagreement by anybody. It was only by a law passed by Congress that American Indians received U.S. citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was so interpreted to apply ONLY to U.S.-born children of U.S. citizens for decades AFTER the 14th Amendment was passed into law.
The U.S. Supreme Court needs to rule on this matter, but someone needs to bring a class-action matter to clear up this issue.
domingo arong on Mar 01, 2006 at 16:03:10 said:
The Citizenship Clause makes no mention of the parentage of the person "born."
Congress should examine more closely the significance of the crucial pair of commas enclosing the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Tim Binh on Feb 28, 2006 at 14:11:59 said:
Most legal immigrants oppose granting US citizenship to anchor babies. It cheapens them and their childrens citizenship, plus it discriminates based on national origin, since 92% of the anchor babies are Hispanic.
Hakeem FABA on Feb 28, 2006 at 03:02:14 said:
Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is a VIOLATION of the 14th amendment.
The 2 primary co-authors of the amendment clearly stated during the congressional debates the meaning of the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The legislative record clearly states that “foreigners”,“aliens” and children born to diplomats are to be excluded from birthright citizenship. Yet this easily researched bit of information is never mentioned in the media nor by the pro-illegal alien activist that seek to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
The granting of birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of illegal aliens is CONTRARY to the expressed intent of the 14th Amendment and is a policy decision by a government that is increasingly disrespectful of its history, citizenry and constitutional obligations.
Diane Chavez on Feb 28, 2006 at 01:33:42 said:
I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens like Cecilia Ruiz. She has no respect for American laws and is now CRYING because she has to watch her illegal tracks.
She will most likely become pregnant soon in order to halt any deportation like many illegals do.
The 14th Amendment of our Constitution was written for the children of American SLAVES
not for illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens and pro-Latin-American groups are disgusting.
They are becoming increasingly unpopular and the American people are waking up to their tripe.
Diane
Jim Williams on Feb 28, 2006 at 01:24:12 said:
Show me one country in the world that has such an on site citizenship birthright. That's right, we are the only ones due to a poor interpretation of the 14th admendment. If one reads the words written by the authors, it did not intend to include any foreigners, nor diplomats, just legal residents and ex slaves.
Liz Venable on Feb 28, 2006 at 01:19:59 said:
The 14th amendment has been twisted to include the children of illegal aliens. It was meant to give slaves the citizenship they deserved. Does Mexico bestow immediate citizenship to children born there to illegals. I'm sure they don't, but America is crucified when we try in any way to protect our country. Our government has waved the white flag and we are being invaded and colonized by the criminals just walking in. If it had to be, I would much rather have gone up against armies, rather than lawbreakers just swarming in bringing crime, drugs, and all the ills of illegal aliens.
-->