Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Profiting From Human Misery
- Scale Implosion: After Ruining America, the Era of Giant Chain Stores Is Over
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Annoying Constitution and the Immigrants' Babies
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . .
-- Inscription for the Statue of Liberty
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has shown that even though he is from mid-America and far removed from foreign countries, he is inspired by, and hopes to model his proposal after, the legal actions of the Dominican Republic (DR) , a country that was confronted by exactly the same kind of problem that the United States is confronting except the problem concerns Haitians instead of Mexicans.
The problem of Haitians moving to the DR was greatly exacerbated after the January 2010 earthquake that left many Haitians homeless who then fled to the DR seeking better lives. The lure of a better life in the United States is one of many factors that cause Mexican families to move to the United States. Although the reasons for the immigrations differ, Mr. King believes the DR solution is a model the U.S. should adopt.
The island of Hispaniola consists of Haiti, the western part of the Island, and the Dominican Republic, the eastern part. The DR has a problem with illegal Haitians moving to the DR and then having children who by virtue of their birth become citizens just as the U.S. has a problem with illegal Mexicans moving into the U.S. and having children who are then U.S. citizens. On January 26, 2010, in the Dominican Republic, a constitutional provision amending the DR’s constitution was promulgated.
The constitutional change was the result of a case filed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2004 in a case involving two ethnic Haitian children who were born in the DR but were denied birth certificates. The DR Constitution provided that anyone born in the DR was entitled to citizenship except for the children of diplomats and people “in transit.” The lawsuit that was filed by the Inter-American Court relied on that provision and in 2005 the two children were awarded damages because the DR denied them citizenship. Notwithstanding that decision, the DR Supreme Court continued to take the position that Haitian workers were “in transit” and, therefore, not entitled to citizenship. As a result, unless they resorted to suing the state, children born to illegal Haitian immigrants were not entitled to receive their birth certificates and without them the children were unable to obtain citizenship papers, enter the university, vote, get free medical care or even get married. On January 26, 2010 new nationality provisions of the constitution were promulgated saying that unless one parent of a child is a legal resident, the child does not obtain citizenship by virtue of being born in the DR. Under the constitutional change a child wishing to get official identification must not only prove his own citizenship but also prove that parents and grandparents were not illegal immigrants.
Peter King was almost certainly influenced by the actions of the DR. On January 5, 2011, the very first day of the new Congress, when some members of Congress were reading the Constitution out loud to prove to a skeptical audience that they know how to read, Steve King introduced a bill to change one of the provisions in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As presently written, the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . .” Mr. King would amend the 14th Amendment to provide that citizenship would only be granted to three classes of people: children of U.S. citizens or nationals, children of permanent residents and children of non-citizens in active-duty military service. Children in the last category would, of course, spend at least the first 18 years of their lives as non-citizens since there is no way that three year olds will be able to enter active-duty military service and thus become citizens. Those children will not be eligible for welfare and other state and local benefit programs available to children who are U.S. citizens. They will, however, have something to look forward to when they attain age 18. They can join the army and thereby receive the myriad benefits that are available to their citizen colleagues.
The 14th amendment was Congress’s response to the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that neither freed slaves nor their descendants could ever become U.S. citizens and lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court. Mr. King’s proposal is a response to his own unwillingness, and that of his colleagues, to deal with problems posed by the status of illegal immigrants in this country in a responsible way. The fact that it was the solution found by the DR should be of no comfort to anyone except, perhaps, Mr. King.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show All"children of non-citizens in active-duty military service. "
I read this as the parents being in the military.
AKA immigrunts.
I think you are correct. If they put a comma after citizens, it would refer to the kids.
thank you for your agreement.
My uncle, who immigrated to the US shortly after wwii, was conned into the Korean conflict. He was told by a recruiter that it would be impossible to obtain US citizenship without first "serving" in the military. Fortunately he survived physically unharmed.
We can't afford to be providing all those benefits to American-born children of illegal immigrants; we need that money to murder children in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan and....
I would remind my white, anglo-saxon, friends that they are descendants of some of the most violent and rapacious "illegal immigrants" this continent, or any other, has ever seen.
I'm sure they would not like to have been subject to the same conditions they now want to impose on others.
I guess they want the 14th Amendment ONLY to apply to corporations.
Liberty & Justice,
sj
not happy with the supreme law of the land?
time for a little less "strict constructionist" pontificating about said document?
1
Heads up Christopher Brauchli and fellow Americans. Here is some personal experience I regard as relevant.
In 1968 I moved to Ontario, Canada and began working with amputees in a Toronto hospital. In 1970 I married a colleague. She and I became parents to a daughter and a son. Obviously, they were born with Canadian citizenship. After a decade it began to seem important that our children be entitled to derive such benefits as may exist by being =dual citizens=. I set about exploring the issues and process.
In stead of being a simple application process, it was an intricate process. Proof of my natural born U.S. citizenship was a trivial stating point. I had to qualify as a =REAL U.S. Citizen= by meeting a complicated set of requirements at different ages and stages of my life. Fail any one of the age and stage requirements - and my kids were shit out of luck. Can you believe I submitted my Report Cards from grades one to twelve? Fortunately, my mother had saved them.
The whole point, as best I can tell, is to prevent some technically legal U.S. citizen from making citizens of other nationals. And as a result, 2 things: 1 rational, 1 irrational.
I feel it should be no less difficult for illegal immigrants to achieve U.S. citizenship than it was for my children to gain it. That is rational. You may call the following irrational, or elitist.
I am a tenth generation American, my paternal forebears having arrived in Virginia a full 125 years before the Declaration of Independence. They were neighbors of the Lee Family at Stratford Hall, and "long hunters" with Daniel Boone. I resented having to =prove myself= for my children to be entitled to American citizenship.
Trylon
I favor making it more difficult for people who think they have inherited the "right" to call themselves a "real American" by virtue of being descended from the right bloodlines. Feudalism anyone?
By your logic, what legitimate claim do any white people have for being here?
Strange how in the minds of many privilege can be transmitted down through multiple generations, and "accrue interest" as it were, but responsibility can not.
Yeah - it's all them damn, irresponsible Mayflower Descendants who are stealing democracy and robbing the poor.
Here's a hint for clever people. The first person to debark the longboat and put her delicate foot upon Plymouth Rock bears my last name. Unfortunately, this means Two Americas has to kiss my pilgrim ass.
Trylon
I can't believe you posted that.
Your understanding is completely wrong. I don't have time to correct it. Speak to an immigration layer.
Trylon
Someone tries to do something constructive about illegal immigration and he gets knocked, viciously.
Reason is dead.
Yeah, too bad that Dred Scott decision is still not in force, eh?
I was always and still is people of color that whites try to prevent from becoming citizens. "Illegal alien" is just the latest euphemism for that.
This whole notion of changing the 14th amendment is a red herring. It plays well for a talking point and makes for good PR when playing to a large segment of the population who sees their standard of living deteriorating. What it doesn't do is solve any real problems. Its a solution in search of a problem.
Are there some school districts or communities who are burdened with the cost of these children - yes and no. Yes, these children come with real costs - the same costs as any other child. No - they are NOT a burden - they are the cost of having a civilized society. These children are every bit our nations future as any other. And its about damn time we started treating them this way - ALL our children. If we spent half our time and resources supporting families - jobs, education, social services, health care, child care, vibrant livable communities - as we do in promoting policies that favor the wealthy then none of this would ever be any type of issue.
If, and at this point I would say its a very big IF, the constitution means anything then what Rep. King has introduced into the congress wouldn't change anything. Rep. King has proposed amending statute (law).
The way I read the 14th amendment, there is NO distinction on status of parents. It simply states if you are born here you are a citizen - period.
14th Amendment:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note the word BORN - it makes NO distinction whatsoever as to the status of the parents. Regardless of what Rep. King - or any of his ilk think - born here = citizen.
I think you all know by now I don't support open borders under the current system where workers are pitted against each other. What I can't do is support ANYTHING that harms children - and these people are out to harm so many children who deserve so much better than what has been handed to them.
If Rep. King wants to save the country from all these "anchor babies" then perhaps he should take a long hard look at the policies and actions that destroys the ability of people everywhere - here and abroad - to live a decent life.
Except for what is really a small group of people (percentage wise) most everybody, regardless of where in the world they are, simply want to live a simple decent life. Regardless of what the media says, most people don't really want to be "rich" (other than it would be nice to not to have to worry), they simply want to not have to worry about housing, food, water, medicine, and enough to have some leisure time to enjoy with family and friends.
Rep. King and the rest should work on THAT and then the rest will take care of itself.