Paradigm Feb 12 Pf

7/30/2019 Paradigm Feb 12 Pf

1/119

FEBRUARY

2011-2012

PUBLICFORUM

PositionPaper

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE

ABOLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES.


2/119

The Paradigm Research Public Forum Position PaperFebruary 2012by David Cram Helwich

Copyright 2012 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:

PARADIGM RESEARCHP.O. Box 2095Denton, Texas 76202Toll-Free 800-837-9973Fax 940-380-1129

Web /www.oneparadigm.com/E-mail [email protected]

All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic,electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrievalsystems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is aviolation of United States and international copyright laws.


3/119

PARADIGM RESEARCH 1PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER FEBRUARY 2012

INDEX

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

AFFIRMATIVE POSITIONS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE:

TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6CONGRESS CAN/SHOULD ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7CONSENT PRINCIPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34POLITICAL POWER/VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37PUBLIC OPINION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40RULE OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41ANSWERS TO:

"ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42"CHILD PUNISHMENT UNTENABLE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43"CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44"FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46"FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48"FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50"SECOND CLASS STATUS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52"UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

NEGATIVE POSITIONS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE:TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59AMERICAN PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62CHILD PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68EQUITY/SECOND CLASS STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69GENDER CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75RACE CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78REFORM FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82SOCIAL COHESION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85


4/119


NEGATIVE POSITIONS cont'd

ANSWERS TO:"AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87"AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91"AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- LEGISLATIVE INTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92"CONSENT PRINCIPLE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

"DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE PROBLEMS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- BIRTH TOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- CHAIN MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108"IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109"INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113"RULE OF LAW" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115


5/119


6/119


1.The Constitutional Basis of Birthright Citizenship. Birthright citizenship is based on the FourteenthAmendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the UnitedStates and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court hasinterpreted this right to mean that "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." The FourteenthAmendment is consistent with common law principles of jus soli, namely that one's nationality isdetermined by his or her place of birth. The alternative system, jus sanguinis, is employed by most

European countries and grants citizenship by descent or blood, according to the citizenship of one'sparents. [Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as aRepeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.546]

The Fourteenth Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship to freed slaves and hasbeen subsequently interpreted to grant citizenship to all persons born the U.S., including the children of immigrants.This interpretation of the amendment is subject to some controversy, as will be discussed below, but it still remains thelaw of the land to this day, having been upheld in two Supreme Court decisions, Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and UnitedStates v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Not only does this resolution raise interesting questions about our understanding of citizenship and role of legal statusin undocumented immigration, but it also provides a pretty clear and relatively balanced division of ground betweenthe pro and con sides. "Birthright citizenship" is generally considered to reference citizenship granted to a person based

upon the circumstances of their birth. In the United States, it refers to the Fourteenth Amendment provision (andcommon law) that grants citizenship to all persons born within the territory of the United States. "United States" refersto the "United States of America," although you should be prepared for squirrely pro teams that trot out definitions of"United States" that refer to Brazil, the Netherlands, etc. "To abolish" generally means "to do away with" or "to annul,"and thus requires the pro team to defend the elimination of BRC. The con team is thus left with ground defending atleast some form of birthright citizenship for some persons in the United States.

However, the resolution is silent on two questions that will likely come up in most of your debates. First, the resolutiondoes not specify an "agent of action" for the abolishment of birthright citizenship. There is a robust debate in theliterature about whether BRC can (and should) be eliminated via a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States,an act of Congress, or through an amendment to the United States Constitution. Although the resolution does notrequire the pro team to defend a particular agent, the con side could well leverage arguments about the undesirability ofparticular means of abolishing birthright citizenship. This means that you should prepare to either argue that the pro

team does not have the burden of defending a particular mechanism of abolishing BRC, or to defend a method ofeliminating the citizenship standard. Second, the resolution does specify a particular alternative to determiningcitizenship in place of birthright. Again, con teams can (and should) advance arguments that alternative means ofdetermining citizenship (generally 'birth by blood') are inferior to birthright citizenship, meaning the pro side should beprepared to defend an alternative means of determining a person's citizenship.

Arguments in support of the resolution generally fall into two categories. First, many legal commentators, particularlylaw professors Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, argue that birthright citizenship is derived from outdated anddangerous feudal notions of citizenship, wherein a person is assumed to owe their allegiance to the sovereign (sourceof authority) that controls a particular territory. They claim that this understanding of citizenship was appropriate to alegal and political system that tied persons to the land on which they lived and worked and invested sovereignty in alord who offered physical protection in exchange for their subject's allegiance. However, sovereignty is now held by

both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as being invested in the people themselves, and mostpeople view the Constitution and our nation's laws as a social contract governing the relationship between citizens asequals.


7/119


From this perspective, the Constitution mediates the relationship between persons and a government whose actions aresubservient to the interests of the sovereign people. Accordingly, we should view citizenship as an "opt in" systemwhere people choose to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America, and not impose said allegiance solelyon the basis of the circumstances of a person's birth. One could readily build a case around this argument, and if youare interest in doing so, we strongly suggest that you read Schuck and Smith's Citizenship Without Consent: IllegalAliens in the American Policy (Yale University Press, 1985). Second, the pro side can argue that birthright citizenshipcreates serious problems in our nation's immigration system. Many critics of BRC argue that it serves as a powerful

incentive for undocumented immigration, encouraging people to immigrate to the United States in the hopes that theirchildren will automatically obtain the numerous benefits of American citizenship. Critics also contend that birthrightcitizenship fuels "chain migration," where children born in the United States are eventually able to obtain permanentresident status for their previously undocumented parents and family members via the U.S.'s family preferenceimmigration system. These critics maintain that undocumented immigration poses a number of challenges, includingdepressing economic activity and draining the public coffers through the provision of social services to undocumentedpersons.

The con side has a similar set of powerful arguments operating along the same two axes. First, defenders of birthrightcitizenship argue that the legal norm is vital to preserving formal equality, claiming that its abolishment would risk thecreation of a permanent underclass of persons who live in the United States who are disadvantaged because they do notenjoy the same privileges and legal protections as full citizens. Commentators point the numerous problems faced bynon-citizen immigrant populations in Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, as evidence that birthright

citizenship both facilitates the blending of immigrants and their cultural understandings and practices the tapestry ofAmerican culture and helps preserve social cohesion by promoting a common and shared sense of American identity.There is some excellent evidence arguing that attempts to eliminate birthright citizenship are rooted in a dangerousxenophobia that not only carries disturbingly racist overtones, but also risks an unraveling of the nation's social fabric.Second, BRC advocates can point to a number of problems posed by the elimination of birthright citizenship, includingserious legal, health, and economic consequences for the children of undocumented persons born in the United Statesand their families. There are also a number of useful defensive arguments against the pro side's "immigration magnet"claims.

This seems to be a very good topic, and we hope that you enjoy debating it.


8/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: TOPSHELF

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS AN IMMIGRATION MAGNET, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH COMMONLAW -- RUNS CONTRARY TO OUR PRINCIPLES OF CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE

Edward J. Erler, Professor, Political Science, CSU-San Bernadino, "Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship:Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny," IMPRIMIS v. 37 . 7, 7-08,

www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/ImprimisTool/archives/2008_07_Imprimis.pdf, accessed 1-7-12.Birthright citizenship -- the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits ofthe United States are entitled to American citizenship -- is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believethat this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. Butthis is simply not true. The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law,having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Assuch, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaksonly of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The ideaof birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are bornwithin the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, thisdebt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common lawis thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration ofIndependence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies are Absolved from all

Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, isand ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "hightreason." So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as theground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain! JamesWilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as aSupreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of theUnited States there are citizens, but no subjects." The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of theDeclaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of thegoverned -- not the accident of birth.

2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS PROBLEMATIC -- THREE REASONS

Amanda Colvin, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and InternationalComparisons Toward Proposing a Solution," SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL v. 53, Fall 2008,p.224-225.Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants generally utilize three arguments in favorof abolishing the practice. First, it bestows citizenship on some whose "only tie to the society is the geographicaccident of their place of birth." Second, jus soli citizenship encourages people from developing nations to enterillegally and give birth to their children, giving rise to so-called "anchor babies." Anti-immigrant groups, such asthe Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that these children born to illegal immigrantparents "create a drain on the country's social service programs." They contend that the large numbers of birthsby non-U.S. citizens in American hospitals is indisputable, and "its impact is huge." Third, automatic birthrightcitizenship may influence states to "adopt tougher rules on family unification," namely, by deporting the illegalimmigrant parents of citizen-children.


9/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONGRESS CAN/SHOULD ACT

1. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BAR CONGRESS FROM ELIMINATING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: AnIrrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.11-12.The Immigration and Naturalization Service's assumption that the children of illegal aliens have birthright

citizenship as a constitutional right is, therefore, clearly subject to challenge and is increasingly beingchallenged. For example, it was prominently challenged in a 1995 book, Citizenship without Consent by Yalelaw professor Peter Schuck and political science professor Roger Smith. "Birthright citizenship's historical andphilosophical origins," they argued, "make it strikingly anomalous as a key constitutive element of a liberalpolitical system." "The framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule ofbirthright citizenship." "The question of the citizenship status of the native-born children of illegal aliens neverarose for the simple reason that no illegal aliens existed at that time, or indeed for some time thereafter." Theresimply were no restrictions on immigration until the late nineteenth century. Before that time, "birthrightcitizenship could plausibly be understood as one ingredient of an integrated national strategy to encourageimmigration," but ""control of our borders', not encouragement of immigration, now dominates contemporarypolicy discussions." Schuck and Smith conclude that Congress has the power "to define the contours ofbirthright citizenship..." "If Congress should conclude that the prospective denial of birthright citizenship to thechildren of illegal aliens" is good policy, then "the Constitution should not be interpreted in a way that impedes

that effort."

2. CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE CITIZENSHIP

John C. Eastman, Professor, Law, Chapman University, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking BirthrightCitizenship," Legal Memorandum, Heritage Foundation, 3-30 -- 06,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship,accessed 1-7-12.It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S.soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship. However strong this commonly believed interpretation might appear,it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debatesurrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding. It is time for Congress toreassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, its view that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phraseof the Citizenship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance to the naturalization policy of the nation.

3. WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LAW SO THAT IT NO LONGER PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FORUNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional AmendmentProposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.518.Deterrence of illegal migration and preservation of the value of United States citizenship are the key

justifications for the Birthright Amendment. The illegal immigrant cost-benefit debate is beyond the scope ofthis Note. But even taking into account that scholars have lauded the accomplishments of illegal immigrants,arguing that they benefit the United States far more than they disservice it, whether the potential exists for animmigrant to possibly benefit the country in some way is not the touchstone for decisionmaking. Ultimately, the

United States has the right to determine who enters, and who does not, and it has unambiguously decided that itsborders are not open to all. Illegal aliens are, by definition, illegally present. With an estimated five millionundocumented aliens and the numbers continuously rising, not only are they present in violation of United Statesimmigration laws, but they are present en masse.


10/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP VIOLATES THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSENT

John C. Eastman, Professor, Law, Chapman University, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking BirthrightCitizenship," Legal Memorandum, Heritage Foundation, 3-30 -- 06,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship,

accessed 1-7-12.Thus, as Professor Edward Erler has noted: [T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent. Not only must theindividual consent to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the community as a whole. If all personsborn within the geographical limits of the United States are to be counted citizens-even those whose parents arein the United States illegally- then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent of"the whole people." In other words, birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of thebedrock principles of the American regime. Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to therepublicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalismof medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sovereign.A necessary corollary of the feudal notion of citizenship was the ban on expatriation, embraced by England anddescribed by Blackstone as follows: Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king'sdominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection.Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change

of time, place, or circumstance. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one princecannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his naturalallegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, andcannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due.

2. CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA CONSENT

Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1,Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12.On our consensualist reading, those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would be citizens atbirth provisionally, in the sense that they would have the opportunity upon attaining majority to renounce thatcitizenship if they so desired. At no time, however, would they be vulnerable to any denial of consent to theirmembership on the part of the state. Native-born children of legal resident aliens would also be provisionalcitizens at birth and during their minority and would enjoy the same right to expatriation. Citizenship at birthwould not be guaranteed to the native-born children of those persons -- illegal aliens and "nonimmigrant" aliens-- who have never received the nation's consent to their permanent residence. Even the citizenship law of theUnited Kingdom, for whose antecedents our common-law citizenship was originally derived, and whichcontinues to adhere to the birthright citizenship principle, does not extend it to the native-born children of eitherillegal aliens or temporary resident aliens. The same is true of other Western European countries. Since theproposed doctrine would require a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause, the change should be madeprospectively, assuring citizenship to those born in the United States while the current understanding has been ineffect. Congress, which bears the ultimate responsibility for fashioning the structure of our immigration policy,would also decide the role of the birthright citizenship for the children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens. Thatdecision is obviously only a small piece of immigration policy. Congress must carefully weigh the moral claimsof these children to membership relative to the claims of other groups, assessing the likely effects on illegal

immigration of eliminating their present guarantee of citizenship, and considering how such a change shouldrelate to the more comprehensive, systematic measures for reducing illegal immigration. We are genuinelyuncertain about how such an evaluation would or should come out. It is an issue on which reasonable people candiffer.


11/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

3. CONSENT WOULD DENY AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP TO PERSONS BORN TO UNDOCUMENTEDPERSONS IN THE U.S.

Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1,Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12.

In the end, the question of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens should beresolved in the light of broader ideals of constitutional meaning, social morality, and political community. Theseideas militate against constitutionally ascribed birthright citizenship in these circumstances. Beyond the issue ofthe Citizenship Clause's intent, it is morally questionable to reward lawbreaking by conferring the valued statusof citizenship, and it is even more questionable to plant that guarantee in the Constitution. This is true eventhough some of the lawbreakers are individuals whose ambition, resourcefulness, and family values mostAmericans would admire. Those characteristics might lead Congress to confer citizenship broadly and easily, butas a matter of informed choice, not constitutional inadvertence. Three basic steps are required to achieve a law ofcitizenship at birth that is theoretically consistent, practical for addressing current policy problems, andconsonant with the nation's fundamental claim that its government rests on the consent of the governed. The firststep requires a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Its guarantee of citizenship tothose born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States should be read to embody the principle of consensualmembership, and therefore to refer only to children of those legally admitted to permanent residence in the

American community -- that is, citizens and legal resident aliens.

4. CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BASED ON CONSENT

Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1,Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12.Although appealing, this argument from life prospects is ultimately unpersuasive. Our proposal to make one'snational status turn, at least provisionally, on the national status of one's parents seems more morally acceptableand less determinative of one's life prospects than many other contingent factors -- such as inherited wealth,upbringing, or genetic endowment -- that are far more likely to shape those prospects in fundamental ways.Indeed, our proposal seems less arbitrary in terms of life prospects than the fundamental concept of birthrightcitizenship itself, which bases national status wholly upon the accident of geographical location at birth. Andeven if the innocence of the child and allied concern for his life prospects are accepted as morally or legallyrelevant, it does not follow that citizenship, as distinguished from mere nondiscrimination, should be the prizefor that innocence. Nondiscrimination does not necessarily imply the same rights and benefits that citizenship orlegal residence status confers. These children and their parents, by being denied birthright citizenship, would notbe treated as the Dred Scott decision treated blacks; they would not be denied the law's protection. They wouldinstead be required to choose among continuing to live in illegal status, with more limited equal protection anddue rights; seeking to obtain legal status; or returning to their home countries. Our proposed interpretationwould, moreover, produce at least one benefit. The government of a more truly consensual polity could moretruthfully proclaim to citizens, resident aliens, and illegal aliens alike that American citizenship stands on a firmfoundation of freely willed membership. It could more credibly claim the contemporaneous allegiance and, ifnecessary, the personal sacrifice of its citizens than it was able to do during the Vietnam War and other corrosivenational conflicts. It could more persuasively invoke what it now can only baldly assert -- a legitimacy groundedin a fresh, vital, and always revocable consent.


12/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

5. PROVISION BY BIRTHRIGHT IS SIMPLY UNFAIR

Anthony C. Beilenson, U.S. Representative, "Case for Correction by Constitutional Amendment," SOCIALCONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_584.shtml,accessed 1-2-12.

The most objectionable aspect of granting citizenship to those offspring is that it is fundamentally unfair. Whilemillions of people around the world wait patiently-in some cases for many years -- to immigrate legally to theU.S., those individuals who manage to circumvent immigration laws are rewarded for it by having their childrengranted automatic citizenship. It also creates an irrational and unfair system under which one set of children ofillegals -- those who arrived here with their parents -- are treated differently from those who happened to be bornin the U.S. This often occurs within the same family. This unfairness has a lot to do with why most Europeanand Asian countries limit citizenship to the children of citizens or legal residents, and only use place of birth inexceptional circumstances. The United Kingdom, for example, formerly had birthright citizenship until, largelybecause of immigration pressures, they restricted it in 1981 to now require that one parent be a legal resident.

6. THE CHILDREN WOULD STILL HAVE STATUS IN THEIR PARENT'S HOME COUNTRY

Anthony C. Beilenson, U.S. Representative, "Case for Correction by Constitutional Amendment," SOCIAL

CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_584.shtml,accessed 1-2-12.Some supporters of the current system have expressed concern that limiting birthright citizenship might unfairlypenalize the children of illegal immigrants. But, because every country confers citizenship to the children oftheir nationals who are born overseas, those children would be treated in exactly the same manner as their olderbrothers and sisters who were born before their parents came to the United States. Moreover, because theFourteenth Amendment only sets a floor below which Congress cannot limit citizenship, Congress would still befree to grant citizenship to classes of individuals in particularly unfair or exceptional circumstances. Virtuallyeveryone agrees that we need to take stronger action to stop illegal immigration, yet we continue to encourageand reward those who immigrate illegally by automatically conferring citizenship on their U.S.-born children.This unreasonable and unfair policy needs to be changed by amending the U.S. Constitution to limit birthrightcitizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.


13/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE

1. BIRTHRIGHT FACILITATES DUAL CITIZENSHIP

Edward J. Erler, Professor, Political Science, CSU-San Bernadino, "Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship:Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny," IMPRIMIS v. 37 . 7, 7-08,www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/ImprimisTool/archives/2008_07_Imprimis.pdf, accessed 1-7-12.

The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens hasled us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that thosewho are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And thecitizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship -- and dualallegiance -- is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state. Itis remarkable that 85 percent of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow -- andencourage -- dual citizenship. Dual citizens, of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence inthe U.S., and many countries use their dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure onAmerican policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine.Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S.while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.

2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INVALID -- DUAL CITIZENSHIP

Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis.Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenshipcreates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become aU.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also toabsolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came. There is no ambiguity about thesolemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirelyrenounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom orwhich I have heretofore been a subject or citizen so help me God." Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dualcitizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents'country, they should not have U.S. citizenship.


14/119


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP COMPROMISES OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS

Virgil Goode, former U.S. Representative, "End Birthright Citizenship," HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 7-12-10,lexis.Birthright citizenship makes it much more difficult to enforce our immigration laws. When an illegal immigrant

is detained, they can use the fact that they have citizen children as extenuating circumstances that make them a"hardship case" when appealing deportation orders. This is why I have used the term "anchor baby" to describethem. The critics of this term are the same people who are trying to make the anchor drop even deeper. Duringhis immigration speech, President Obama stated we cannot deport illegal aliens because "it would tear at thevery fabric of this nation -- because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.Many have children who are American citizens."


15/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A STRONG MAGNET

Al Knight, "Change U.S. Law on Anchor Babies," DENVER POST, 6-22-05, p.B7.More than a dozen years ago, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith put it this way in their article "Consensual

Citizenship," in the magazine Chronicles: "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthrightcitizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation bynonimmigrant aliens already here. When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of expandedentitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentiveeffect of birthright citizenship may well become significant." That passage was written in 1992 when the numberof such births was estimated at less than 150,000 per year. Since then, the number has more than doubled.

2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A VERY STRONG MAGNET

Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis.The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs),Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with hisfamily. As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-bornspouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy calledchain migration. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors forhis bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the FourteenthAmendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admittedresident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.


16/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

Monica Diaz Greene, "Birthright Citizenship: Should the Right Continue?" JOURNAL OF LAW & FAMILYSTUDIES v. 9, 2007, p.168-169.

With the high number of illegal immigrants having children within the borders of the United States, it is timethat the government limits automatic citizenship and develops legislation similar to other first world countries.While it is difficult to determine how many illegal immigrants currently reside in the United States, someestimates put the number as high as 20 million. Members of Congress argue that much of the allure in coming toAmerica illegally is the chance of having a child born within United States territory. In 2003, Imperial ValleyMedical Center in El Centro, California, spent more than 2 million dollars in uncompensated medical care,including care to undocumented immigrants. Much of this money is going to give medical services to womenlike Juanita, interviewed in Shadow of Hope, who are coming to the United States illegally to have theirchildren. Heath care professionals who work in emergency rooms are required by law to provide medicalservices to everyone, and they are prohibited from asking about the citizenship status of any person. In 2004,Congress decided to give more than one billion dollars over four years to hospitals in border states to facilitatetheir financial survival. Nevertheless, Representative Tom Tancredo questions why, as a nation of laws, is theUnited States helping those who are here illegally? If the United States were to limit citizenship as proposed inH.J. Res. 46, the Citizen Reform Act of 2005, or the RIGHT Act, immigrants would have less of an incentive toenter illegally. While limiting automatic birthright citizenship would not stop the illegal immigration problementirely, it would be an affirmative step in letting the world know that in order to gain the rights and privileges ofAmerican citizens you must immigrate legally. Traditionally, the United States has welcomed those who want toimmigrate. In fact, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads "give me your tired, your poor, your huddledmasses yearning to breathe free." However, that welcome was not made at a time when those who immigratedwere crossing borders illegally. It was made at a time when thousands of people waited in line to be processedand admitted to the United States. And while the United States still should welcome the tired, poor, and thoselonging to be free, it should return to the tradition of only welcoming those who are willing to follow the processand gain citizenship legally, and it should do so by limiting automatic birthright citizenship.

4. BIRTHRIGHT INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, "American Citizenship Is Not a Birthright," 8-10 -- 10, p.A10.The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves. It's been misinterpreted to givecitizenship to children of illegal aliens. Now some GOP leaders want to restore its original meaning. In Texasthis year, some 60,000 so-called "anchor babies" will be born to the 1.5 million illegal aliens estimated to residethere. They're called that because under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment they're automaticcitizens, encouraging more illegals to arrive and making it hard to deport those already here. "There is aproblem," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday. "To provide anincentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw morepeople to our country. I do think that it's time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow thisconversation about the 14th Amendment to continue."


17/119




5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

Howard Sutherland, attorney, "Citizen Hamdi: The Case Against Birthright Citizenship," AMERICANCONSERVATIVE, 9-27-04, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2004/sep/27/00021/, accessed

1-2-12.Despite the Court's evasion, this is no small matter. The government's selective misreading grants birthrightcitizenship to anyone (except diplomats' children, highlighting federal inconsistency) born on American soil, nomatter who his parents are. Birthright citizenship lures illegal aliens, who know a U.S.-born child is, thanks toAmerican immigration law's family-reunification bias, an anchor baby who will be able to sponsor his relativesfor residence and citizenship. They also know that anchor babies' mothers are not deported. In 1993, the LosAngeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegalaliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien populationof between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year.

6. ANCHOR BABIES ARE A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN ALL THE BORDER STATES

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative, "Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," 10 -- 3-06,http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html, accessed 1-2-12.A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S.hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchorfor their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break upfamilies by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, hasbecome a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation. In some Houston hospitals, administratorsestimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician insouth Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It's the same story in California,Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do nothave health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills. This obviously cannot be sustained, either by thehospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.


18/119




7. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the FourteenthAmendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population

Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008,p.346."If you subsidize something, you get more of it; if you tax something, you get less of it." Birthright citizenshipprovides aliens yet another incentive to enter the United States illegally, or, if already present, to violatetemporary visas. Combined with the powerful lure of entitlement to citizen children and their alien parents, theincentive of birthright citizenship cannot be ignored. In 1963, President Johnson declared a war on poverty -- todate the United States has spent $ 11 trillion fighting this war, a war that our immigration policies operateagainst by increasing the number of immigrants with low skill levels likely to receive welfare services. Before1960, immigrant education level was on par with non-immigrants, and immigrant income, on average, exceededthat of non-immigrants. In other words, immigrants came with education levels comparable to the existingUnited States population, and they earned as much or more than Americans. The 1965 Immigration Act,promoted as a minor adjustment, made drastic changes in our immigration law. After the Act, by comparison tonon-immigrants, immigrant education levels plummeted such that "immigrants increasingly occupy the low endof the U.S. socio-economic spectrum." Two conditions entice poorly educated immigrants to cross the border:(1) current immigration law favors kinship above education (chain migration), and (2) "a permissive attitudetoward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws [prohibiting]employment of illegal immigrants." Current politics of immigration make it impossible to be selective inadmitting immigrants from different nations, leaving as alternatives only loss of control of the borders orrestrictive policies toward immigrants in general.

8. CURRENT LAW INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional AmendmentProposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.512-513.The status quo creates a perverse incentive for illegal immigration whereby the reward for illegally entering the

country can be an American child. The benefits attached to having an American child extend beyond thoseassociated with social services. With an American child, an illegal immigrant can plausibly bootstrap permanentresidency onto himself once he has been in the country for seven years, thus gaining an unfair advantage overlaw-abiding, immigrant-hopefuls on the waiting list for permanent residency. Additionally, having a child can beused to circumvent screening procedures: Although the United States generally does not grant visas to foreignerswho are likely at any time to become chronically welfare-dependent, the bootstrap phenomenon allowsforeigners who would normally be ineligible to receive visas to become permanent residents. The result is that aforeigner who never waited on the immigrant visa waiting list, and who would have been excluded as a publiccharge, may be granted permanent residency with an American child as evidence of hardship.


19/119




9. THE ARGUMENT ONLY GOES IN ONE DIRECTION -- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CAN ONLY BE ANINCENTIVE FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION

Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment

Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.519-520.However, empirical data also demonstrate that whereas an initial trip to the United States tends to be motivatedby the availability of income, the priorities of those who have come to the United States more than once clearlyshift toward familial interests. Economic opportunities remain important, but become subordinate to familialinterests, especially "aspirations for the future of the children," as the primary reason for immigration. There isdisagreement as to the extent of the attraction to would-be illegal aliens of United States citizenship for theirchildren. However, no authority has argued that the ability to give birth to American citizen children is adeterring factor in the decision to illegally immigrate. Automatic birthright citizenship "can only operate, at themargin, as one more incentive to illegal migration." Sociological studies have been published on the hedonicweight of parenthood, and illustrate the strength of maternal instinct with respect to the ability to take risks andmake sacrifices for the child. It is not inconceivable that a loving mother would opt for an American passportover a passport from a less stable country for her newborn child.

10. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ADDS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS EVERY YEAR

Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "LosingControl of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNALOF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.494.On the conservative assumption that in their lifetime such children each make possible the immigration of tworelatives, either directly through their own petition or indirectly through the petition of someone for whom theyhad earlier petitioned, each year's group of such birthright citizens could ultimately lead to the entry of more than300,000 immigrants over time. Many of these immigrants are likely to receive their lawful permanent residentstatus through immigrant categories that are not limited in number -- namely, the spouses, unmarried minorchildren, and certain parents, of citizens -- and thus will represent real increases in total immigration. Suchimmigration can reasonably be viewed as contrary to the will of most Americans, because it is ultimately derived

from an illegal immigration. It is also to the disadvantage of prospective immigrants abroad who wouldotherwise receive the visa numbers many of these relatives will use.

11. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP CREATES A MAGNET EFFECT, ENCOURAGING UNDOCUMENTEDIMMIGRATION

Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "LosingControl of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNALOF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.497.Incentive for Illegal Immigration In addition, current policy creates a significant additional incentive for illegalimmigration. In one study of a sample of Hispanic women who gave birth in 1991-92 in several hospitals in SanDiego County, including citizens as well as legal and illegal aliens, fifteen percent said they had come to theUnited States in order to have their child in this country, and of the fifteen percent, about two-thirds stated that

they had come so their child would be a United States citizen. The researchers suspected that the true figure washigher than fifteen percent, but that others were afraid to admit it. Furthermore, because the sample includedcitizens and lawful resident aliens, the fifteen percent figure was lower than the one for illegal aliens alone. Asformer Rep. Anthony Beilenson of California observed, "While millions of people around the world waitpatiently -- sometimes for many years -- to immigrate legally to the United States, those individuals who manageto circumvent our immigration laws are rewarded by having their children granted the greatest gift that we as anation confer on individuals."


20/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM

Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis.It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth,

receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privilegesplus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United Statesevery year, at least 10 percent of all births. We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering"birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea toTurkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico,advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?"


Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10,http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11.According to CIS, America's citizenship policy has also led to the growth of a "birth tourism" industry since theState Department is "not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is pregnant."This may be a relatively minor problem relative to the hundreds of thousands of children born to illegalimmigrants who reside in the country. But it illustrates how some foreigners who don't even live in the U.S. aretaking advantage of this policy. The fact that it can exist at all even on a limited scale is very troubling. TheTucson Medical Center in Arizona, for example, "actively recruits in Mexico" for expectant mothers and offersthem a "birth package." Three California Chinese-owned "baby care centers" recruit foreign mothers to givethem the ability to have their babies in the United States and "take advantage" of the law according to the owners(who started the business after coming to the U.S. to have their own child). Turkish doctors and hotel owners(including the Marmara Hotel in Manhattan) have set up a birth tourism business that has "reportedly arrang[ed]the U.S. birth of 12,000 Turkish children since 2003" in order to obtain U.S. citizenship because, as one of theTurkish mothers said, "American citizenship has so many advantages."


21/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM cont'd

3. CURRENT SYSTEM CREATES PERVERSE INCENTIVES FOR BIRTH TOURISM

Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,"BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed

1-2-11.Zhou believes that a cheaper education is often a motivating factor and his pitch to prospective clients includesthe notion that public education in the United States is "free." One of his clients, Christina Chuo, explains thather parents "paid a huge amount of money for their education" in the United States because they were foreignstudents; having an American citizen child permits her child to acquire the same education at a lower tuition. Shealso noted that she and her husband were not interested in permanently immigrating to the United States,"except, perhaps, when they retire." As discussion about limiting birthright citizenship heats up in the UnitedStates, some foreign countries are concerned about possible changes. The Nigerian media, for example, recentlypublished an article titled, "American Agitations Threaten a Nigerian Practice." The practice referred to is that ofNigerians traveling to the United States to have a child -- a practice that, according to the newspaper, is"spreading so fast that it is close to becoming an obsession." The U.S. State Department is not permitted to denya woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is pregnant and the legal document she obtains means sheis not likely to be stopped at the border. Consequently, the practice of granting automatic birthright citizenshipallows a seemingly temporary admission of one foreign visitor to result in a permanent increase in immigrationand grants of citizenship that were not necessarily contemplated or welcomed by the American public. Add tothis the fact that immigration authorities are less likely to deport a visitor who overstays their permitted time ifthey have a U.S. citizen child, and one ends up with an immigration policy quite different from that which wasoriginally intended. The birth tourism industry illustrates how the executive branch's permissive birthrightcitizenship policies can have the effect of transferring control over the nation's immigration policy from theAmerican people to foreigners.

4. CURRENT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP LAW IS ABSURD -- ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM

Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: AnIrrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.12-13.

Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is perhaps the most cited andmost influential federal judge not on the Supreme Court. Arguably, he is the nation's leading public intellectual.In a concurring opinion written in 2003, he argued that "Congress should rethink awarding citizenship toeveryone born in the United States (with a few very minor exceptions) (citation omitted) including the childrenof illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unbornchildren." He quoted an article that concludes, "The situation we have today is absurd. For example, there is ahuge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the UnitedStates and give birth to an American." "We should not," Judge Posner argued, "be encouraging foreigners tocome to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children." Citing andagreeing with Professors Schuck and Smith, he concluded "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if itamended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."


22/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS AN INCENTIVE, ALSO FUELS CHAIN MIGRATION

Mary Lou Pickel and Eunice Moscoso, "Birthright Citizenship Under Attack," ATLANTAJOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 9-29-05, p.1A.

Moreno wanted Scarlett to be an American because with the blue American passport, "the doors of the world areopen to her," she said. Mexicans have a harder time getting tourist visas to see the world, she said. Dan Stein,president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies to reduce illegalimmigration, said the lure of U.S. citizenship for children is a "huge incentive" for people to come to the UnitedStates illegally because it opens the door to many social benefits. Also, once they reach 21, the U.S.-bornchildren of illegal immigrants can petition for their parents' residency. Family reunification often is cited as areason for amnesty proposals. There were 6.3 million illegal immigrant families in the United States in 2004,according to a study released in June by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most of them -- 59 percent -- do not havechildren, the study said. But nearly one-third of families headed by illegal immigrants do have children who areU.S. citizens, the study said.


Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,"BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed1-2-11.Birth Tourism. The significant benefits of U.S. citizenship and the executive branch's permissive birthrightcitizenship policies have become a magnet for those seeking to add a U.S. passport holder to their family. Anentire industry of "birth tourism" has been created and the phenomenon of pregnant women traveling (legally) tothe United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil has grown largely without any debate inCongress or the consent of the public. "It's easy. If you register the birth, it's automatic that your baby can get anAmerican passport," said Kim Jeong Yeon, a Korean woman who traveled to the United States on a tourist visawhile six months pregnant. Like many other women, Kim spent thousands of dollars to have a company arrangethe travel. "If they could afford it, all my friends would go to the United States to have their babies," she said.According to Selin Burcuoglu, a Turkish woman who traveled to the United States to give birth last year, the

process was easy: "We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin for our child's birth. It wasincredibly professional. They organized everything for me. I had no problem adjusting and I had an excellentbirth. I don't want her to deal with visa issues -- American citizenship has so many advantages."

3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES CHAIN MIGRATION

Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,"BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed1-2-11.Chain Migration. A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when hereaches the age of 18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21,he can also sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters. Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most ofthe nation's growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent

residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S.immigration laws in the late 1950s -- one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside thenuclear family -- resulted in the average annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million today. Thisnumber continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independentlyof any economic downturns or labor needs. Although automatic and universal birthright citizenship is not theonly contributor to chain migration, ending it would prevent some of this explosive growth.


23/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION cont'd

4. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EVENTUALLY EXTENDS IMMIGRATION RIGHTS TO THE WHOLEFAMILY

Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative, "What is the Best Way to Reform Immigration? 'Birthright Citizenship

Must End," ROLL CALL 12-5-05, lexis.Currently, the United States grants citizenship automatically to every person born in our country, except thechildren of foreign diplomats. That includes legal permanent residents, temporary visitors, holders ofnonimmigrant visas -- and illegal immigrants. Obviously this creates a tremendous incentive to rush into thecountry to birth children. We've seen the millions who risk their lives and spend their savings for the chance towork in this country, let alone gain citizenship. And for those in line for American citizenship, the wait can be aslong as 18 years. Once an illegal immigrant crosses our borders and gives birth to a child, her entire family getsto cut in line. This is because our immigration laws give an automatic path to citizenship to family members ofcitizens. Having a so-called anchor baby in the United States gives foreign families a direct shot at citizenshipthat they otherwise would not have.

5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES CHAIN MIGRATION

Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10,http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11.As for chain migration, CIS points out that when a child becomes an adult, he can "legalize his parents, and alsoto bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The sponsored spouse can,in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn sponsor their ownforeign -- born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain."This type of immigration is almost uncontrollable. It "accounts for most of the nation's growth in immigrationlevels," and it continues to grow every year "because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operateindependently of any economic downturns or labor needs."

6. ANCHOR BABIES FUEL CHAIN MIGRATION

William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the FourteenthAmendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern PopulationMigrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008,p.350-351.Split families, those with both alien members and members claiming citizenship, result when illegal parentsarrive, often with illegal children, and give birth to a child on American soil. Illegal aliens -- both those whoenter the United States illegally and those who stay beyond the term of their once-valid visas -- have anchorbabies, raise split families with claims of "dual" citizenships, and "bring in their relatives in an unending processknown as 'chain migration.'" Such families typically earn less money than legal families, and the cost ofhealthcare for the children is borne mostly by the public. Alan Wall explains how this public support continuesbeyond healthcare: Of course the birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. As the child grows he or she isentitled to a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs. Since most anchor babies are classified as"minorities," they can expect to enjoy legal preference over "non-Hispanic white males" under today's "civil

rights" regime. Upon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby is eligible to import relatives from the homecountry through America's nepotistic chain migration system, in which the principal qualification for aprospective legal immigrant is having relatives already in the U.S. When you look at the vast cornucopia ofbenefits, you have to conclude that the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration. For those whodisobey U.S. law and their children, America is certainly the land of opportunity!


24/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS

1. IMMIGRATION INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY

Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Colorado State University and Winthrop Staples III, wildlifebiologist, "The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States," Center for

Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, June 2009, http://www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument, accessed 1-4-11.While the economic effects of immigration are complex and the details are open to debate, it appears that overthe past few decades high immigration levels have contributed to increased economic growth, lower wages forthe poorest Americans, and an increase in economic inequality in the United States. Continued high levels ofimmigration will likely further these trends. Far from strengthening the case for continued mass immigration,these effects provide three additional reasons to oppose it. First, an immigration policy that benefits rich citizens(who hire immigrants) at the expense of poor citizens (who compete with them) seems prima facie unjust. IfAmericans want to help poor foreigners, we should not do so on the backs of our own poor citizens. (Liberalproponents of mass immigration are as loath to accept its effects on workers' wages as they are to accept itsdemographic and environmental effects. But this is willed ignorance. After all, trade groups representinglandscapers and restaurant owners lobby for increased immigration precisely because it allows their members tohire workers for less money.) Second, accepting greater economic inequality in exchange for greater overallwealth seems a foolish trade-off for Americans today. We are already wealthy enough to provide for our realneeds and reasonable desires. Further wealth when combined with greater inequality is a recipe for frustration,envy, and socialtension.

2. IMMIGRATION HURTS LOW-SKILL AMERICANS -- RESULTS IN A HUGE INCOME TRANSFER

Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Colorado State University and Winthrop Staples III, wildlifebiologist, "The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States," Center forImmigration Studies, Backgrounder, June 2009, http://www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument, accessed 1-4-11.On the other hand, focusing on whether mass immigration is "good for the economy" ignores the fact that anyimmigration policy creates economic winners and losers. According to Harvard economist George Borjas,"immigration induces a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants

and toward employers and other users of immigrant services." This is because, compared to other industrializednations, the United States imports a much higher percentage of less-educated, lower-skilled workers. Borjasnotes that "between 1980 and 1995, immigration increased the number of high school dropouts by 21 percentand the number of high school graduates by only 4 percent." During this same period, the wage disparitybetween these two groups increased 11 percent, with perhaps half of that disparity a result of mass immigration.Borjas calculates that between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of high schooldropouts by 7.4 percent, or $1,800 on an average salary of $25,000. For these workers, who could least afford it,real wages actually declined during this period.

3. IMMIGRATION DRIVES POVERTY -- LITERALLY 'IMPORTS' IT

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Testimony before the Senate Joint EconomicCommittee, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, September 25, 2008, lexis.

There is a common misconception that the low education levels of recent immigrants are part of a permanenthistorical pattern, and that the U.S. has always admitted immigrants who were poorly educated relative to thenative born population. Historically, this was not the case. Throughout most of U.S. history, the education levelof immigrants was equal to, or greater than, that of non-immigrants. The steady influx of low skill (without ahigh school degree) and semi-skilled (with only a high school degree) immigrants inevitably leads to increases inthe number of poor persons in the U.S. Low and semi-skilled immigrants and their families now comprise almostone fifth of all poor persons in the U.S. While there is a common myth that immigrants use little welfare, inreality, immigrants are heavy users of welfare services.


25/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS cont'd

4. IMMIGRATION DEPRESSES WAGES, INCREASING DOMESTIC POVERTY

Michael E. Telzrow, "The True Cost of "Cheap" Labor," THE NEW AMERICAN, February 19, 2007, pp.27-29.Job displacement is the handmaid of illegal immigration. According to a 1993 report of the Commission on

Agricultural Workers, native peach-industry workers in Georgia, many of them African American, weredisplaced by Hispanic migrants. Additional reports by the commission noted that migrants replaced natives andprevious immigrants in the cucumber and apple industries in Michigan. The commission documented anothercase in which mechanized agricultural packing houses in Michigan ceased operations after switching to manualpacking in the field.The unionized native workers were eliminated almost overnight, their jobs replaced bylower-paid field hands from south of the border. The glut of illegal aliens suppressed wages, shut out Americanworkers,and consigned newly arrived immigrants to a life of impoverishment. The same holds true on a largerscale today. Proponents of guest-worker legislation maintain that it is just and right to use labor from Mexico.They claim that U.S. consumers benefit from low-wage farm labor in the form of low supermarket prices. Butthe consumer price benefits are small because the labor cost is only part of the total cost. In any case, the pricebenefits at the supermarket are outweighed by costs associated with healthcare, law enforcement, and education.

5. THERE IS NO NEED FOR MORE UNSKILLED LABOR, UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATIONDEVASTATES LOW-SKILLED AMERICANS

Stephen Steinlight, senior policy analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, "Ignoring Problems of IllegalImmigration Leads to Exploitation," JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY, August 2008,http://www.cis.org/node/759, accessed 1-4-11.We don't have a plethora of manufacturing jobs anymore, we don't suffer from under-population and we nolonger need unskilled immigrants. We have 73 million adult Americans with only a high school education, andthat's more than enough unskilled labor. With cheap immigrant labor flooding the market, millions of Americansare unemployed, and many have despaired about finding work. Massive immigration has disastrousconsequences for America's most vulnerable: the unemployed, partially employed, working poor, recent legalimmigrants, African Americans and elderly working populations. Legalization will sanction and perpetuate thisassault on struggling Americans by flooding the workforce with more cheap labor. A 1997 study by the

American Academy of Sciences found that the cheap labor of illegal aliens and poor immigrants caused a 44percent decrease in wages among the poorest Americans from 1980 to 1994. The immigration policy embracedby the Jewish community establishment is disastrous for America. It condones illegal immigration, and thatdoesn't improve working conditions for immigrants but has brutal consequences for struggling Americans.


26/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ALLOWS PARENTS TO AVOID DEPORTATION ON 'HARDSHIP'GROUNDS

Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,"

BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed1-2-11.The issue of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens who have not been admitted for permanent residencecannot be resolved in isolation from other immigration issues. For example, politicians on both sides of the aisleregularly call for an increase in temporary workers, but the economic and social impact of children born to theseworkers while they are in the United States is never part of the discussion. Under any large-scale guestworkerprogram, it is likely that tens of thousands of children would be born on U.S. soil. If the guestworker does notdepart when his work visa expires, he becomes an illegal alien and is subject to deportation. But immigrationauthorities cannot deport the guestworker's citizen child along with the overstaying guestworker. The result isthat the guestworker makes the case for indefinite stay based on the principle of "keeping families together" -- anargument that is often successful at stopping an alien's deportation. Because of birthright citizenship, whatstarted as a policy to bring in laborers on a temporary basis can become yet another channel for permanentimmigration. This is one of the reasons why some have said that "there is often nothing more permanent than atemporary worker."

2. CITIZEN CHILDREN ALLOW UNDOCUMENTED PARENTS TO APPLY FOR AN EXTREMEHARDSHIP EXEMPTION TO DEPORTATION

Ashley E. Mendoza, "Anchors Aweigh: Redefining Birthright Citizenship in the 21st Century," JOURNAL OFLAW & FAMILY STUDIES v. 13, 2011, p.203-204.One of the most hotly debated issues today is illegal immigration. Not only are there problems securing theborder from criminals and those smuggling drugs, but there is the additional problem of pregnant womenentering the country illegally for the purpose of gaining American citizenship for their children. After one ofthese babies is born, the mother remains in the country unlawfully but now has a link to the United States andbenefits from the child, who, like Saul, is born a United States citizen. Parents with citizen-children who choose

to unlawfully remain in the United States are still subject to deportation. However, having a citizen-child allowsthe illegal parent to appeal to an immigration judge, claiming deportation would subject the citizen-child to"extreme hardship" and potentially deprive the child of the benefits associated with his/her citizenship.

3. 'ANCHOR BABIES' FACILITATE IMMIGRATION -- HARDSHIP APPEALS, FAMILY IMMIGRATIONRIGHTS

Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: AnIrrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.3.A parent can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantagesof the American welfare state. Nor need doing so even be entirely altruistic. Illegal alien parents with anAmerican-citizen child remain subject to deportation, but that deportation becomes less likely. They will be ableto appeal to an immigration judge, an administrative court, and ultimately a federal court to argue that

deportation would subject the American-citizen child to "extreme hardship," a recognized ground for suspensionof deportation, as it would potentially deprive the child of the benefits of his or her American citizenship.Perhaps even more importantly if the deported parents opt to take the American-citizen child with them, thechild can return to this country for permanent residence at any time. The child can then, upon becoming an adult,serve as what is known in immigration law as an "anchor child," the basis for a claim that his or her parents beadmitted and granted permanent resident status. The parents will then ordinarily be admitted without regard toquota limitations.


27/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP cont'd

4. CURRENT LAW ALLOWS PARENTS TO GAIN PERMANENT STATUS

Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional AmendmentProposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.521.

Currently, many illegal alien parents are able to "bootstrap" their children's United States citizenship status intolegal resident status, and eventually even citizenship for themselves. Under the status quo, once a child reachesthe age of majority, he may file a petition for legal permanent resident status on behalf of his parents. Under theproposed Amendment, this bootstrap phenomenon would be slightly different. At the age of majority, anaturalized child would have the same capacity to sponsor family members as under the current rule. But since achild would not be able to naturalize if he has a felony conviction, the criminal record would essentially precludethe parents' ability to bootstrap into the country. The child's parents would therefore have a strong incentive toensure that their child exhibits law-abiding behavior, at least for the first eighteen years of his life.

5. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP INCREASES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- MAKES IT POLITICALLY MOREDIFFICULT TO DEPORT THE PARENTS

Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "LosingControl of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNALOF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.497-498.Greater Difficulty Deporting the Parents The policy also results in the presence of U.S.-citizen children in thefamilies of an increasing number of illegal alien residents of this country. This increases the political, if not thelegal, difficulty of deporting the illegal alien parents and siblings. One former United States Attorney for the SanDiego region was quoted recently as saying that he can recall no case in the last ten to fifteen years where theillegal alien parents of a U.S. citizen child were deported. Indeed, at least one legal scholar has argued that it isunconstitutional for the government to deport a citizen child's illegal alien parents because this amounts to a defacto deportation of the child. Although several courts have already rejected this concept, that the argument isstill being made reflects the moral and emotional dilemma created by current policy. In addition, this situationmakes it difficult to deny certain kinds of public assistance to illegal aliens, such as welfare and subsidizedhousing, for which only those legally in the country qualify, but which, if provided, benefit all family members.


28/119



IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET

1. BIRTHRIGHT CHILDREN CAN ACCESS WELFARE BENEFITS -- UNDERMINES EFFORTS TO DENYSUCH BENEFITS TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS

Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,"

BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed1-2-11.Benefits. Most benefits Americans would regard as "welfare" are not accessible to illegal immigrants. However,illegal immigrants can obtain welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-bornchildren. Many of the welfare costs associated with illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the currentbirthright citizenship policy. Put another way, greater efforts at barring illegal aliens from federal welfareprograms will not significantly reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access the benefits.Nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare. In some states, the rateis higher: in New York, 49 percent receive welfare; in California, the rate is 48 percent; in Texas, it is 44percent; and in Georgia, 42 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive welfare. Only 19 percent ofhouseholds headed by native-born citizens make use of a major welfare program.

2. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION OVERBURDENS THE WELFARE SYSTEM

William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the FourteenthAmendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented M

Documents

Paradigm Feb 12 Pf