The big new story today is that President Trump is considering issuing an executive order that will make children of illegal aliens no longer automatic citizens of the USA. The issue of so called anchor babies has been tossed around in the last few years. Should illegals be able to enter the USA and have a baby who is automatically a citizen. That act pretty much cements the parents ultimate right to staying here.
The key point in the debate is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of that Amendment reads as follows:
Section 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.
That sounds pretty clear if you just read the first sentence. "All persons born ... in the US...are citizens." But as is often the case with the Constitution, it is not that simple.
First, it is important to remember that the 14th Amendment was designed to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War. Much of it covers how Confederate soldiers and states were to be treated. It also covered how former slaves were to be treated. Simply put, a former slave born in the US was a citizen. That's why the first sentence of the Amendment was included in the text. It did not consider children of those here illegally.
Second, for the first 100 years after the 14th Amendment was passed, the children of people here illegally were NOT automatically citizens. That's a pretty good indicator that when the amendment was adopted, it was not meant to cover those children. The practice was changed in the 1960s.
The truth is that this will be a question on which the Supreme Court will have to rule. We I a Justice on that Court, I believe I would hold that these children are citizens. The language is just too clear to conclude anything else. Nevertheless, I have not researched the matter fully. I could see it possible that the other side would prevail.
One thing is important to remember, however. The media headlines today scream about how the President is going to "revoke" the citizenship of anchor babies. That's nonsense. All those born to illegals who already have US citizenship cannot be stripped of it absent due process and equal protection. That means that absent a full court hearing, no one can lose his or her citizenship. No executive order could achieve that end.
The key point in the debate is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of that Amendment reads as follows:
Section 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.
That sounds pretty clear if you just read the first sentence. "All persons born ... in the US...are citizens." But as is often the case with the Constitution, it is not that simple.
First, it is important to remember that the 14th Amendment was designed to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War. Much of it covers how Confederate soldiers and states were to be treated. It also covered how former slaves were to be treated. Simply put, a former slave born in the US was a citizen. That's why the first sentence of the Amendment was included in the text. It did not consider children of those here illegally.
Second, for the first 100 years after the 14th Amendment was passed, the children of people here illegally were NOT automatically citizens. That's a pretty good indicator that when the amendment was adopted, it was not meant to cover those children. The practice was changed in the 1960s.
The truth is that this will be a question on which the Supreme Court will have to rule. We I a Justice on that Court, I believe I would hold that these children are citizens. The language is just too clear to conclude anything else. Nevertheless, I have not researched the matter fully. I could see it possible that the other side would prevail.
One thing is important to remember, however. The media headlines today scream about how the President is going to "revoke" the citizenship of anchor babies. That's nonsense. All those born to illegals who already have US citizenship cannot be stripped of it absent due process and equal protection. That means that absent a full court hearing, no one can lose his or her citizenship. No executive order could achieve that end.
No comments:
Post a Comment