Born In America: Should Every Baby Born in the U.S. Get Citizenship?
(CBS) It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.
She gave birth to a healthy, 8 1/2 pound baby boy - born in America. His Mexican mother gave him an American name: Eliot.
Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens.
That's because those babies can eventually sponsor their parents - when they turn 21 years old.
As for Eliot's mother, no longer as fearful of deportation, she told CBS News her name, Fabiola, and her story.
"So your son is an American citizen. What does that mean to you?" Pitts asked.
"I am very glad that he was born. That's why I came here - so my children, my husband and I could have a better life," she said through a translator.
Back in December, when she was six months pregnant, Fabiola, her husband and their two daughters - ages 4 and 11 - crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S.
Once on the other side of the river they walked for two hours in search of a better life and free medical care for their unborn child.
"Do many women in Mexico make the choice to have their children in the United States?" Pitts asked.
"Yes," she said through a translator. "I know people who have done that. Things are much better here in the U.S. because they help children so much more."
It's a "better" life ... that American taxpayers help pay for.
Take healthcare for example -- an estimated $1.1 billion per year for undocumented men, women and children, according to the Rand Corporation.
Joe Riley is the CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center near the Texas-Mexico border. Forty percent of the children born there, nearly 2,400 last year, were the babies of illegal immigrants.
Riley has seen and heard it all.
"Mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river in actual labor … dirty, wet, cold," he said.
But here to have a child?
"Here to have a child in the U.S.," he said.
McAllen is part of a large hospital system. Like all hospitals, it is mandated by law to treat all emergency-room patients, not verify citizenship.
"We have uncompensated care of over $200 million a year," Riley said.
"Of money that you'll never see again?" Pitts asked.
"Yes," he said.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said: "It is not fair to the taxpayers who have to foot the bill."
Congress has all but given up on comprehensive immigration reform. But lawmakers like Smith want to solve birth citizenship to illegal immigrants, in part by challenging the 14th Amendment, which guarantees U.S. citizenship to any child born in America.
"It seems fundamentally wrong that we ought to give the greatest honor of their citizenship," Smith said. "His or her mother came across the border illegally."
Many Americans who struggle to take care of their own families think it is unfair that they should take care of a family and they are not U.S. citizens.
"I don't understand the resentment," said. "I know that God will help them, too."
That's what Fabiola's doing for young Eliot. Relying on her faith, her family … and the U.S. government.
Click to see more stories on Immigration
What government programs?
I'm a citizen and I have never used those programs because they are useless to even those in need. I tried collecting unemployment once and I was told to wait an unreasonable amount of time to later find out the money I was going to receive was not enough to survive and pay my bills. The government programs are useless to most Americans. Most of us don't even use them. We should get rid of them. Wait, that may be hasty because those programs employ a buch of useless American citizens.
Why should the children be punished
We are proud to say that we are a Nation that beleives in Justice. What is just and fair for the commong good.
I cannot rationalize the concept that we need to punish a baby and take away his birth right of citizenship just because the parent commited an offence.
It is as unjust as proposing that maybe we should kill the baby too. Why not, after all, some of those babies if we allow you to pass such a law would be stateless. Not all the illegals come from Mexico. Some come from countries that would not recognize the citizenship of the baby as theirs. Making the baby stateless and without any protection given to citizens from any country.
Illegal Immigration
The 14th Amendment is being interpreted the wrong way, by the wrong people. It was written solely for former slaves, so that they didn't have to worry about their children being seperated from them and/or sent to Africa. It was never intended to apply to people just crossing our border, especially right before they give birth, and giving birth to babies whom are entitile to a lifetime of social benefits. Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their grave if they knew what was happening today!
California has already gone bankrupt because of illegal immigration and the rest of the nation will soon follow (if something isn't done about it). And when (not if) we go completely bankrupt we will no longer be able to provide aid (of any sort) to any other nations, ever again.
The third world ads 80 million people to its population each year, but 99% of these people will always be stuck there, and must learn to bloom where they are planted. Immigrants from Mexico should not be treated any different. We can send aid to help with third world poverty, but this help must be done in their native lands, not here. We must also remember that illegal immigration puts a strain on our national resources, raises crime, crowds jails, and destroys the social fabric of this country. The need to continue the melting pot for more social diversity, is a ridiculous excuse. The pot is done, and now it's simply overwhelmed us and it's spilling over. Besides, we've got the best culture (though, not for long if this issue remains unresoloved) in the world and why should would we risk changing that?
Check out Numbers USA (on the net) for a comprehensive study on the subject!
Who interprets the Constitution
The Courts interpret the constitution. That is their Constitutional right? What do the court think about the fourteenth amendment?
Constitution 101:
(1) the Legislature make laws
(2) the executive enforces the laws
(3) the judicial interprets and imparts justice and punishment in accordance to the law.
No law can be enacted in such a way that it impart automatic punishment on an individual without the right of due process.
No law can be enacted or passed if it cannot find it source in the constitution.
Senators do not Interpret laws, courts do. Courts inherent obligation is to void any law that is unconstitutional.
What do Law Makers do?
Law Makers are so busy trying to obtain power that they do not really care anymore in protecting the Constitution. One of the first laws that past was the oath of allegiance. "I ...will protect the Constitution of the United States" That is not longer true this days...we are so quick to get rid of fundamental rights in this country for the sake of protecting federal programs that do not work and are not the foundation of this country. Why are we trying to deny the citizenship of individuals born in the US? For Universal Health care? Give me a break!
14th Ame. U.S. Constitution
I guess is easy to just say things in this forum without bringing concrete evidence.
However, I will try to rationalize disprove your claim that the 14th amendment was made to not send "people back to africa" as you say.
The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that "In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted."
"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that"
"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," [This is the Fourteenth Amendment]
"also declares that"
"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."
"And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that"
"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."
"And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that"
"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. (see Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; and Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; and Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; and Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465).
The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. (see Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274)."
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. (see 21 Wall. 167)."
"In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:"
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. (see 124 U.S. 478)."
The Fourteenth Amendment “was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect."
Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. (see The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; see Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; see Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; see Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; see Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101.)”
Citing Justice Bradley, Justice Gray affirms that “[t]he question is now settled by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, that citizenship of the United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence. The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.”
Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley agreed with Justice Field when saying that “[the Fourteenth Amendment] recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry.”
“The language employed [in the Fourteenth Amendment] is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language "citizens of the United States" was meant all such citizens, and by "any person" was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes and conditions of men.” (Justice Swayne opinion).
In 1958, the supreme Court further added that the Fourteenth Amendment, in the Perez case that “[t]he Government is without power to take citizenship away from a native-born or lawfully naturalized American. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that this priceless right is immune from the exercise of governmental powers."
"If the Government determines that certain conduct by United States citizens should be prohibited because of anticipated injurious consequences to the conduct of foreign affairs or to some other legitimate governmental interest, it may within the limits of the Constitution proscribe such activity and assess appropriate punishment. But every exercise of governmental power must find its source in the Constitution. The power to denationalize is not within the letter or the spirit of the powers with which our Government was endowed."
"The citizen may elect to renounce his citizenship, and, under some circumstances, he may be found to have abandoned his status by voluntarily performing acts that compromise his undivided allegiance to his country. The mere act of voting in a foreign election, however, without regard to the circumstances attending the participation, is not sufficient to show a voluntary abandonment of citizenship. The record in this case does not disclose any of the circumstances under which this petitioner voted. We know only the bare fact that he cast a ballot. The basic right of American citizenship has been too dearly won to be so lightly lost."
"I fully recognize that only the most compelling considerations should lead to the invalidation of congressional action, and where legislative judgments are involved, this Court should not intervene. But the Court also has its duties, none of which demands more diligent performance than that of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. That duty is imperative when the citizenship of an American is at stake -- that status which alone assures him the full enjoyment of the precious rights conferred by our Constitution.”
CONCLUSION
The fourteenth Amendment was not enacted or passed to protect the rights of Blacks in America, that had already been protected through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case prior to the birth of the fourteenth amendment. What the Foourteenth amendment does is to protect the rights of citizens that are targetted by a group of people who have threatened the security of this country by insiting divisive thoughts.
The Fourteenth Amendment was born after the civil war. We should preserv the principles contained in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not doing so is a threat to the stability of a nation.
I hope this explenation open a serious and logical discussion.
The Don't Need to Amn the Contitution
The Fourteenth Amendment is not an extension of the Constitution, is an assertion that the Constitution of the United States is without power to grant or allow anyone to take away the birth right citizenship one attains when born.
“[t]he Government is without power to take citizenship away from a native-born or lawfully naturalized American. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that this priceless right is immune from the exercise of governmental powers…the Court also has its duties, none of which demands more diligent performance than that of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. That duty is imperative when the citizenship of an American is at stake -- that status which alone assures him the full enjoyment of the precious rights conferred by our Constitution.” Perez v. Brownel, U.S. Supreme Court
The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation…Deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be…[denying the citizenship birth right is] offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of everincreasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.” U.S. Supreme Court
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of [citizenship], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.” United State Supreme Court
What this means is that the Framers of the Constitution—most of them not born within the jurisdiction of the United States—followed the maxim “protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” which was the principle behind citizenship. Protection to the State is guarantee by an individual if the State guarantees protection back, that is the meaning of citizenship.
Those who want to negate the constitutional birth right of a person have to disprove what has already been established as a fact in the highest court of the land. The term citizenship is not just a word, it is a concept with legal roots in principles that extend beyond the birth of the United States of America.
It strikes me of odd that people in the United States are still wondering what constitutes to be a citizen. I find it more disturbing that Congress is ignorant about this concept. Citizenship is a right obtained either by birth, by transfer or by choice. Citizenship by birth is technically called “jus soli” citizenship, citizenship by transfer is called “jus sanguinis” citizenship, and citizenship by choice is attained by applying for citizenship through a process of naturalization. No citizen in the United States can lose his citizenship easily, in contrast, citizenship can only be lost by self declaration. It is illegal for the United States to enact laws that would take the right of citizenship in any other form.
The Law Maker in this report has mislead the readers by indicating that the Fourteenth amendment needs to be amended. The fourteenth amendment was born after the civil war. It was an amendment that sustained the rights of those who were not considered citizens of the United States at that time. Court cases like Dread Scott v. Sandford proved the need to have this amendment. The amendment declares that the Citizenship birth right is obtained at the time of birth and is a compact between the individual and the country that saw his or her birth. Jus soli Citizenship is a social compact between the individual and the country and has nothing to do with the parents of the individual. This concept goes as far as the Greeks, the Romans, but the defined concept was adopted by the Framers of the constitution by principles defined in the 1600s.
However, if you are interested to really understand this concept, please read the United States Supreme Court opinions related to U.S. citizenship, particularly “jus soli” citizenship. The most important case describing this was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray explains that is the right of citizenship that gave power to the Constitution, the constitution guarantees the birth right of citizenship attained by a person because the Constitution cannot maintain its powers if it takes it away from those who give it. Hard to understand Concept but it means that the Constitution is alive because it has made certain social compacts with the people--citizenship is one of those compacts. No law can be enacted or passed in regards of taking away the birth right of citizenship because it in essence is unconstitutional.
This may be a hard concept for some to grasp or accept, specially some Law Makers, but the fact that we are considering not to uphold this right in the United States is of grave concern. My generation is now tested to uphold a basic principle to preserve a Nation. We are destroying the concept of citizenship because we do not understand it and we are too lazy to understand it.
If you are more interested in learning what is citizenship and learn the struggle Americans have endure to preserve it, there is some reading to do. Please do not just rely on a two minute report that shows one side.
Doe d. Duroure v. Jones 4 T.R. 300, 100 E.R. 1031 1791
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 738 (1824)
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How) 393 1857
Udny v. Udny L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441 (1869)
The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36 (1873)
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall) 162 (1874)
Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270 (1875)
Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 (1879)
Ex parte Virginia 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
Neal v. Delaware 103 U.S. 370 (1880)
Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Ex parte Wilson 114 U.S. 417 (1885)
Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Smith v. Alabama 124 U.S. 465 (1888)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co. 296 U.S. 268 (1935)
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt 320 U.S. 430 (1943)
Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe 331 U.S. 586 (1947)
Hughes v. Fetter 341 U.S. 609 (1951)
Mah Toi v. Brownell 219 F.2d 642 (1955)
Lee Hong Lung v. Dulles 261 F.2d 719 (1958)
Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Howlett v. Rose 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. 514 U.S. 211 (1995)
Citizenship should depend on
Citizenship should depend on at least one parent must be a citizen and the other must be here legally in order for the child to get citizenship.
Citizenship should depend...
Citizenship does not depend in the status of a parent unless the citizen was boarn abroad, far away from the jurisdiction of the United States.
Citizenship depends on allegiance to the country. That allegiance is a state of mind between an individual and the individual's country.
Don't you see the danger of negating the citizenship of individuals? The United States has made mistakes like this before. Fifty years ago, the United States used to automatically denationalize U.S. born citizens if they left the country and resided overseas over a certain period of time. That of course seamed at that time logical for some, but detrimental for many. That law was therefore repealed.
Why do we insist in focusing the proble to the citizens born in the U.S. and not to the Parents and the authorities that let these parents entered illegally? The person featured in the report had to stay a number of months prior to give birth. Wouldn't it make sence to focus in the real problem and not in victimizing the citizen that is born in the U.S.?
The instance a baby is born in the U.S., the baby automatically pledges allegiance to this country. That baby may, one of these days, be obliged to serve in the U.S. Armed forces to defend his or her country. The baby is born with obligations to his or her country of birth. Do you think that the illegal immigrant parent has the power or the right to negate that obligation?
In return, the nation has the constitutional obligation to protect those who empower it, the citizens.
THEY REALLY NEED TO AMEND THIS.....
THEY REALLY NEED TO AMEND THIS LAW/RIGHT. I KNOW OUR FORE FATHERS HAD GOOD INTENTIONS WHEN THEY WROTE THIS, BUT OUR RESOURCES ARE DWINDLING, SOC. SEC. IS SUFFERRING, AND THE ILLEGALS ARE PUTTING A HEAVY BURDEN ON OUR COUNTRIES RESOURCES, YET DON'T PAY TAXES, AND DEPLETING JOBS FOR AMERICANS BECAUSE THEY WORK MUCH CHEAPER. (EVEN LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE IN SOME CASES, AS LONG AS THEY CAN STAY.) BUSH SHOULD HAVE PICKED THIS FIGHT WITH MEXICO TO FIX MEXICO, SO THEIR PEOPLE WILL WANT TO STAY.
Post new comment
Recent blog posts
- Caught on Tape: The Power of Thursday's Storms
- 5/9/08 This Week's Garden of the Week Winner!
- Extra Video: Running of the Chihuahuas, The Kissing Donkey, and the Beer Guzzling Toddler
- 5/8/08 Severe Weather This Afternoon.
- Berry Time in Tennessee
- 5/5/08 Harrison Elementary 3rd Grade!
- Summer Movie Extravaganza
- 5/2/08 This Week's Garden of the Week Winner!
- Monteagle Family Makes National News for a Storm Closet.
- 5/1/08 More on Air Quality Awareness Week
AP News Video
Recent comments
- Sorry to say that you r
5 hours 56 min ago - If someone else claimed you
6 hours 14 min ago - Maybe someone else claimed
6 hours 15 min ago - My 17 year old sister got a rebate check, but I didn't.
6 hours 30 min ago - You are created by God
7 hours 8 min ago - rebate check
7 hours 15 min ago - Does any one really know whats up?
7 hours 27 min ago - hey i feel for ya but sorry
8 hours 2 min ago - The feds think that if you
8 hours 32 min ago - Not only should she drop
8 hours 57 min ago
What our forefathers didn't know
The children of women who cross the border to abuse the 14th ammendment should be denied the rights of citizenship. I know that if the rules of migration to the states at the time this amendment was framed were the same as they are today, the amendment would read much differently. We should not welcome those who come into our country to abuse our constitution and feed off of the welfare provisions in place for OUR poor CITIZENS. Every dime an illegal alien steals from these programs is one we can no longer offer the poorest amoung us who actually belong here. We should worry more about these our fellow citizens and work to protect the programs that help them in their time of need. Stopping illegal immigration and the abuse of the constitution would be a huge step in the right direction.