Anchors Away

President Trump has stated that he is considering changing the policy of providing birthright citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents by executive order. These babies are popularly referred to as "anchor babies".

This is an issue I wrote about in these pages back in 2015 entitled, "An Anchor Around Our Necks" detailing the compounding costs of birthright citizenship.

The United States is decidedly in a distinct minority in providing citizenship this way. Among developed countries, Canada is the only other country to provide birthright citizenship.

In fact, the trend has been to eliminate birthright citizenship in recent years. Ireland was the last European Union country to eliminate it in 2005. France did away with it in 1993. The UK in 1983.

Australia and New Zealand are other countries that eliminated birthright citizenship in recent years.

There are those who state that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and therefore can only be eliminated by constitutional amendment. However, this question has never been directly decided by the Supreme Court.

What does the 14th Amendment actually say which was enacted originally to insure that slaves would be recognized as citizens.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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." (emphasis added)

That seems fairly clear except for the words I underlined above..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is a child born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when those parents are unlawfully present in our country?

This is the crux of the argument that is made by those (Donald Trump included) that believe that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. At a minimum, they believe that Congress has the right to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. It has already been accepted that this means that children born to foreign diplomats do not gain U.S. birthright citizenship nor do members of certain Indian tribes.

I would further argue that the very actions of the federal government in not enforcing the immigration laws means that illegal immigrants that are here have effectively not been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by the consistent failure of our government to enforce the country's jurisdictional borders.  How can an illegal immigrant be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of our country if they are here illegally but our government is doing nothing about it?

There were an estimated 300,000 children born in the United States last year to mothers who are illegal immigrants. To put that in perspective, that is about 1 out of every 12 births in this country!
Aa result of the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution each of these children are considered to be United States citizens.

Another 500,000 children are born to legal immigrants. Taken together, births to immigrants make up about 20% of all U.S. births today.

U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also eligible to sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. At full majority age at 21, he or she can sponsor parents and siblings under our "chain migration" laws.

Can you imagine anyone who voted for the 14th Amendment in 1866 at the federal or state level thinking that we would be conferring citizenship to this many as a result of this provision?

In fact, Senator Jacob Howard was one of the authors of the 14th Amendment and specifically offered the amendment language that added the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is his explanation of the reasons for that language and its import.

I doubt that Senator Howard or others at that time could have envisioned a time in which Chinese, Russian, Mexican or Honduran women would come to the United States specifically to gain citizenship for their child.

I recently had dinner with someone who had just returned from a visit to China. They commented to me that they were shocked at the high number of pregnant Chinese women on their flight from Shanghai to Los Angeles. They told me their flight was loaded with pregnant Chinese women.

What were they doing on the flight? They were on their way to Chinese immigrant birth hotels in Los Angeles specifically to gain U.S. citizenship for their child.

This article from NBC News earlier this year explained what is going on after Homeland Security raided 20 sites that were housing Chinese women awaiting the birth of a child in the United States.

Southern California apartment complexes that doubled as "maternity hotels" for Chinese women who want made-in-America babies were raided early Tuesday, capping an unprecedented federal sting operation, officials said.

NBC News was on the scene as Homeland Security agents swept into The Carlyle, a luxury property in Irvine, California, which housed pregnant women and new moms who allegedly forked over $40,000 to $80,000 to give birth in the United States.

The organizers who allegedly ran the Carlyle site, Chao Chen and Dong Li, used a website to drum up business, touting the benefits of a child with U.S. citizenship: 13 years of free education, low-cost college financial aid, less pollution, and a path for the entire family to emigrate when the child becomes an adult. 

They were funneled to several Orange County hospitals to deliver, but they didn't pay full price — approximately $25,000 — for medical services, officials said. Instead, they got reduced rates for the indigent, ranging from nothing to $4,000, the court papers say.

That translated into big losses for the hospitals. More than 400 babies linked to the scheme were born at just one facility in a two-year period, investigators said.

Of course, this birth tourism is nothing compared to the thousands of women who have entered the United States illegally and then end up giving birth to a baby in the United States.

For example, Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas reported that 70% of all its births in 2006 (16,000) were to illegal alien mothers. It is no longer reporting this number ( I wonder why?) but you have to imagine it is even higher today.

The costs of all of this are enormous. 67% of all illegal immigrant births are paid for by Medicaid (in other words--YOU).  The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the Medicaid costs for births and early infant care for immigrants (legal and illegal) is over $5 billion per year

41% of the illegal mothers of these children have less than a high school education. 40% of these mothers are living in poverty. What do you think the chances that these children will also end up in poverty and on some form of public assistance? As I wrote in 2015, the compounding costs of anchor babies is mind boggling.

President Trump is unlikely to be able to change the policy through an executive order. However, who would have thought that Obama could have implemented DACA in that same manner.

Trump deserves credit for attempting to elevate this issue to public debate. It is an issue that deserves public scrutiny and discussion. Whether it goes anywhere will likely be determined by the midterm vote next Tuesday. Should the Democrats take control of the House you can be sure they will do everything to insure that there is no debate. If the Republicans maintain control, there might be half a chance at a debate. Why do think that Trump wants to use an executive order?

Trump is literally saying "Anchors Away" in more ways than one.