Immigration debate takes nasty turn: Birthright US citizenship faces new challenge

The immigration reform debate has taken a nasty turn in recent weeks. Because federal legislators have failed to see eye to eye on adopting sensible immigration laws, members of the Republican Party have spawned a sneaky approach to the dilemma by calling for a repeal of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “Any persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Conservative Republican Small TSen. Lindsey Graham stated that America faces a growing foreign threat: illegal immigrants and tourists who come here for the express purpose of giving birth so their children get citizenship.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and a few other top Republicans have jumped on the issue and called for immediate hearings.

“We need to have hearings. We need to consult constitutional scholars and study what the implications are,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said last week. “We need to tread carefully in this area, because we would be changing, frankly, settled law.”

The senators said their concerns arose from recent reports of a burgeoning “birth tourism” industry, which helps expectant mothers travel to the United States to deliver their babies. They also said that birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, provides an incentive for people to enter the country illegally.

But even some of the most vocal critics of the country’s immigration laws are skeptical of the efforts to change the 14th Amendment, a move they say is emotionally charged because it affects children and families.

“We don’t think that it is worth the political capital to initiate a debate on this issue,” said Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that backs stricter immigration policies. “The energy spent on ending birthright citizenship might be better spent reducing illegal immigration through a commitment to immigration law enforcement generally. If illegal immigration is ended, the problem of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens disappears.”

Republican Senator Graham said he might propose a constitutional amendment because birthright citizenship has become a magnet for illegal immigration. “To have a child in America, they cross the border, go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen,” he said. “That shouldn’t be the case.”

Amending the Constitution is a difficult task. Some who support curbing birthright citizenship argue that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and that the issue could be dealt with more simply by passing a law. Opponents of birthright citizenship say the amendment couldn’t apply to illegal immigrants because there was no illegal immigration when it was adopted in 1868 to ensure the citizenship of the American-born children of freed slaves.

Groups that study immigration trends say the number of “birth tourists” to the United States is relatively small, perhaps a few thousand a year. The number of U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrant parents is thought to be much higher; there were about 5 million such children living in the U.S. in 2009, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

“This is a symptom of the larger problem of illegal immigration in this country,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations for Numbers USA, the leading group opposed to birthright citizenship. “It is an important issue. This is part of our identity as a nation, and we’re the only industrialized country that has not changed its birthright citizenship laws.”

Graham’s proposal revived a popular misunderstanding: In the often heated debate, pundits refer to “anchor babies,” and talk show callers express frustration that pregnant women could cross the border from Mexico illegally, and then rely on their U.S. citizen newborns to put them immediately on a path to citizenship. But under immigration law, U.S. citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents.

Immigrant rights advocates say that birthright citizenship is beneficial to American society because it promotes assimilation and that revoking that right could create generations of residents who reside in the country illegally.

Thankfully, this debate has yet to reach the ears of Lady Liberty proudly standing in New York Harbor holding a torch that serves as a beacon to welcome the tired and poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free. If it did, she’d turn from her oxidized green to red from embarrassment.