June 01, 2008
WA GOP takes a controversial stance on Anchor Babies

One of the news items on Orbusmax was this:

State GOP: No automatic citizenship for kids born in U.S. to illegal immigrants

The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

This is not a new idea...

The state party approved a similar platform plank at its 2006 convention that proved controversial. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes citizenship for all persons born in the United States.

"Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about," state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. "And it's certainly a very defensible position. It's not at all something that's based on race concerns. It's a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on."

And it is going to be just as controversial, and may continue to help the Democrats brand the Republicans as xenophobes and racists.

While it is a popular notion with the anti illegal immigration set, the fact is that there is not much congressional support for a Constitutional Amendment, which near as I can tell is what this would take.

Any legislation will immediately be challenged as being in violation of the 14th, and my personal belief is that the SCOTUS will uphold the conventional notion.

It is not to say the idea is without merit.  While pro immigration groups scoff at the notion, the facts actually support the critics.  it may hurt some peoples notions, but immigrants do sometimes come here pregnant hoping to deliver while on US soil so as to have the edge in immigration.

It is estimated that as many as 380,000 babies each year fall into this category, and may include not just illegals, but also tourists on a tourist visa (as opposed to a work visa).

The history of the 14th Amendment does support the critics to a degree:

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

I say "to a degree" because the history of many Constitutional provisions is open to interpretation, which is how we got Roe v Wade, and porn as protected free speech.

What I see here is an attempt to redefine the State's agenda to adopt a more conservative stance.  This may or may not be good, I won't make a call.

But it is obvious that the other side will be more than happy to exploit it as they always have.

Time will tell whether this will help secure the State GOP's platform, or it's coffin.

 

Posted by guitarplayr at June 01, 2008 11:36 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Great in theory. Dumb execution. Wrong place, wrong time.

Posted by: Hairy Buddah on June 2, 2008 12:33 AM
2. If the State Party really wanted to go after Illegal immigration they would call for measures to take place at the state level first. It would be alot easier than getting a consitituional amendment passed. There are a number of things that could be proposed like:

prosecuting companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens.

prosecuting illegal aliens that use stolen identities to obtain emplyment and benefits.

Cutting off non emegncy social sevices (i.e. food stamps, public schooling, etc)

Stopping the whole "sanctuary city" laws.

And that is just at the state level and could possibly be done via an initiative.

A better try at the Federal level would be to attempt (not sure if they could get it to happen) to take up legislation that would bill the country of origin for any costs do to the incaeration (housing, clothing, feeding, etc) costs and deportation costs. To collect on the bill the Feds would reduce the amount of aid moneies going to these countries by the amount of the bill. This would send a much stronger message.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 2, 2008 05:52 AM
3. It is time for a test of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court level. If the same fuzzy logic that gave us Roe/Wade prevails, it would do away with anchor babies and families. Clearly the intent of the 14th Amendment was not to create anchor babies. It appears that only the USA has this type of absurd law.

Plus this will be an important step to reduce green house gases and global warming.

Posted by: Snuffy on June 2, 2008 12:14 PM
4. Since Anchor Babies are NOT part of the 14th Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, no Constitutional amendment is required to change it. The primary change needed is a change in public understanding.

The only way that can happen is for public debate.

The only way for public debate to happen is to raise public issues.

The best way to raise public issues is in political campaigns.

The best way to raise public issues in political campaigns is for candidates to do so as a part of a broad coalition of candidates who support each other and, therefore, do not appear to be a tiny minority.

The best way to create a broad coalition is in the context of a political party by its platform.

Posted by: Doug Parris on June 3, 2008 01:51 AM
5. OMG! Doug! I can't believe it but I'm actually agreeing with everything you just said and in the way you said it. That was a very well reasoned and polite comment. I hope that this spells a turn in your way of conducting yourself (and I'm sorry that that sounds like a backhanded compliment because I know it does and for the first time that is not my intention).

Posted by: WFP on June 7, 2008 11:22 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?