Conservative Sistah Demands That We EndBirthright Citizenship For Illegals Like Elvira Arellano
Her saga made good copy for the media, and immigrant advocacy groups now want the recently deported, high-profile illegal immigrant who sought sanctuary in a Chicago church to be allowed to return here because her son, born in the U.S., is considered an American citizen.
In 1997, Elvira Arellano had been deported back to Mexico but re-entered the country illegally and gave birth. She was arrested again in 2002 and convicted of using a phony Social Security number.
The day she was to appear before immigration authorities, she hid out in the Chicago sanctuary. She went to Los Angeles last month, where she was arrested and again deported back to Mexico.
Because of the misapplication of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens like Arellano are granted automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship.
The amendment was passed in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856), the Supreme Court held that blacks, whether free or not, were neither citizens of the U.S. nor could they become citizens. The Citizenship Clause essentially struck down this ruling.
The key phrase as it relates to the present immigration debate is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which indicates there are exceptions to granting citizenship to those born in the U.S.
The Supreme Court tackled this issue in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, finding that the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded from American citizenship children born to diplomats, alien enemies in hostile occupation, and members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
One could argue that people like Arellano are “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” though it might be a stretch. Regardless, why should she benefit from her criminal activity simply because she gave birth to a child here?
Unfortunately, the automatic citizenship precedent is set. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end the practice. Under the present “anchor baby” scam, illegal immigrant parents of a baby born in this country can apply for all sorts of government aid for the baby. Once the child reaches adulthood, he can sponsor his parents and a “chain” of other family members.
Deal’s bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify who is or is not a citizen. Citizenship would be granted only to children born in the U.S. with at least one parent who is a citizen, national, legal resident or an alien in active duty in the armed forces.
The illegal “immigration” problem must be attacked on all fronts. State and local governments are doing their part by writing laws to prevent official agencies from issuing driver’s licenses or granting welfare to people who can’t prove citizenship. Employers who hire illegal immigrants face fines and revocation of business licenses.
Will these measures, including ending birthright citizenship, encourage millions of illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and stand in line for legal entry like everyone else? Probably not. But it’s a start.
In 1997, Elvira Arellano had been deported back to Mexico but re-entered the country illegally and gave birth. She was arrested again in 2002 and convicted of using a phony Social Security number.
The day she was to appear before immigration authorities, she hid out in the Chicago sanctuary. She went to Los Angeles last month, where she was arrested and again deported back to Mexico.
Because of the misapplication of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens like Arellano are granted automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship.
The amendment was passed in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856), the Supreme Court held that blacks, whether free or not, were neither citizens of the U.S. nor could they become citizens. The Citizenship Clause essentially struck down this ruling.
The key phrase as it relates to the present immigration debate is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which indicates there are exceptions to granting citizenship to those born in the U.S.
The Supreme Court tackled this issue in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, finding that the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded from American citizenship children born to diplomats, alien enemies in hostile occupation, and members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
One could argue that people like Arellano are “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” though it might be a stretch. Regardless, why should she benefit from her criminal activity simply because she gave birth to a child here?
Unfortunately, the automatic citizenship precedent is set. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end the practice. Under the present “anchor baby” scam, illegal immigrant parents of a baby born in this country can apply for all sorts of government aid for the baby. Once the child reaches adulthood, he can sponsor his parents and a “chain” of other family members.
Deal’s bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify who is or is not a citizen. Citizenship would be granted only to children born in the U.S. with at least one parent who is a citizen, national, legal resident or an alien in active duty in the armed forces.
The illegal “immigration” problem must be attacked on all fronts. State and local governments are doing their part by writing laws to prevent official agencies from issuing driver’s licenses or granting welfare to people who can’t prove citizenship. Employers who hire illegal immigrants face fines and revocation of business licenses.
Will these measures, including ending birthright citizenship, encourage millions of illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and stand in line for legal entry like everyone else? Probably not. But it’s a start.