The frustration of many with our porous borders, as well as concern about the burgeoning illegal populations fosters much consternation about “anchor babies” — for want of a better descriptor.
Estimates place the numbers, born to parents who are in the country illegally, at least 500,000 births a year. The Supreme Court did not deal with the legality of this issue as is often wrongfully cited by its 1896 Wong Kim Ark decision.
The 14th Amendment, along with the 13th and 15th Amendments, were written in response to slavery during reconstruction and have been used by the courts to justify things which were not in its original purpose.
On the issue of anchor babies, the similarities to treatment of slaves in our states has some unpleasant similarities for babies conceived/born here, regardless to the origins of their parents as were slaves brought here — often against their will.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th gave slaves certain rights as citizens which antedates in this amendment specification of who citizens are. Our newest obsession with refugees is not covered in the Constitution and should require approval by Congress; realizing that Jews were turned away during the Holocaust and George W. Bush’s amnesty for 100,000 Bantu from Africa still has not been fully realized.
The 14th Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, overturned the court’s own rulings in Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857, which limited the rights of slaves, thereby broadening the definition of citizenship.
It is ironic that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who was not even born in this nation but running for its presidency, would advocate denying birthright to those born on this precious soil.
Many cite the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision on Wong Kim Ark, which notes this child of Chinese immigrants legally domiciled in the U.S. had the rights of citizenship and could not have such revoked after a trip outside of the nation upon his re-entry.
Though a child of foreigners, as one permanently domiciled and a resident in the U.S. at the time of birth, Ark could not be denied the rights of citizens. This is not the same as people illegally here and housed on U.S. soil.
It is clear in reading the 1857 ruling that citizenship means those permanently domiciled, and a resident, at the time of birth born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli).
Noted also is that foreign diplomats who have children while stationed here cannot claim citizenship for their children. This should bring into question the concept of “natural born” citizenship. This also begs the question of whether those who aren’t citizens at birth are eligible to run for the presidency, even if one parent was by choice a citizen living abroad via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent).
U.S. military personnel stationed abroad who have children at their assignment have had their children granted automatic citizenship.
Presently defining citizenship in view of the concept of ‘illegal aliens,” domestic workers, anchor babies, “birther” movement statements regarding seekers of the presidency not born on U.S. soil or quartering refugees is not clearly defined by Congress or the Constitution.
Natural-born citizenship needs immediate clarification before the flood gates are irrefutably opened, allowing other than citizens born on this soil to lead. It is essential that this nation of many peoples define who its citizens are and whether we have rights on this soil that others don’t.
In this, the maze of legal mumbo-jumbo obfuscating important issues of who is a citizen, what are our rights? Whether squatters’ rights or equal entitlements can be claimed by those illegally here requires constitutional guidance not heartfelt compassionate sympathy.
Family members of citizens here should not necessarily be given entry preference for relatives not born in this nation solely for reunification purposes. They must stand in line and await their turn as is done for others seeking relief.
No other nations allow unrestricted immigration without establishing and enforcing its guidelines. Upon entry to this nation at Ellis Island, people had to have a sponsor, speak the language, which is English (not American) and have a job before they were let in.
It used to be held that immigration was to allow those facing political oppression a refuge, not to serve as a haven for those seeking better lifestyles or improved economic status.
In our generosity to undocumented visitors within our borders, we are strangling our entitlement system — including social security and other bounties of kindness. Too often others not legally entering or staying in this country are given opportunities, options, and others rights which birthright citizens often can’t enjoy.
This must stop, for we don’t extend to others that which we aren’t providing for citizens and taxpayers here. Charity must also be shown at home.
Dr. Ada M. Fisher was the first black woman to serve as the Republican National Committeewoman. She was a candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina, a candidate for U.S. Congress, and a candidate for the North Carolina House of Representatives. She is the author of "Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for What Ails Us, Book I." For more of her reports, Go Here Now.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.