Part 3: Path to citizenship – line forms at the rear
One thing I don’t understand about the whole debate on immigration is that no one, absolutely no one that I know about has advocated amending the constitution to do what should have been 100 years ago: bestowing citizenship to those whose parents are citizens instead of those who happen to be born here.
The 14th amendment begins with “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 was a post Civil War amendment (along with the 13th and 15th), and the language above was designed to prevent the defeated southern states from disenfranchising the newly liberated former slaves.
Well, that was a good thing in 1865, but why (in 2007) are children of foreign diplomats born here considered citizens? Why is citizenship bestowed on children of persons here illegally? Why is the letter between X and Z? (OK, just making sure you’re still with me).
Repealing this provision of the 14th amendment is key to making progress on getting to a sane, workable immigration policy. It becomes very difficult, very unpalatable to enforce laws on illegal entry when by virtue of having a child in this country, the illegals are suddenly family members of a family with a citizen. No one wants to break up families, and how do you deport a citizen?
Therefore we must amend the constitution to do away with this artifact of Reconstruction. The language should be replaced with a guarantee of citizenship for those who have a biological parent who is a citizen, and a grant of power to the Congress to define citizenship for those who are adopted into a home of a citizen, those that are naturalized, etc.
Amending the Constitution is very difficult (as it should be), but the change advocated above.. who would oppose it? Now, I’ll add something to the pot to make it more controversial, with the proviso that this is something that can be compromised or fine-tuned to keep it passable. The change in the 14th amendment should also be retroactive to children of illegals who haven’t turned, say, 13, at the date of ratification of the amendment.
I believe this is necessary just because of the sheer number of “anchor babies” born here in this wave of illegal immigration. I don’t know what the correct age number should be. It might be zero if it turns out this logical and completely justified provision is the kiss of death for passage of the new amendment. If that’s the case we’ll have to deal with the asymmetries caused by having two classes of guest workers: those that had babies here and those that didn’t. I like keeping things simple. If we’re going to be extremely generous in transitioning persons’ status from illegal to guest worker (reference my previous posts), we maintain the right to draw the line somewhere in our generosity. What my proposals say to the illegal alien here is this:
“You work hard, you came here with a wink and a nod from the U.S. government — proof of this is the total lack of effort the last few decades to do something about you or the employers who hire you — but now the “free beer” sign on the border has produced a problem that can no longer be ignored. So we’ll end the winks and nods, but still be generous to you by converting your status to that of a guest worker. Continue to work here, but realize that there is a time limit to this — to become a permanent resident or a citizen is a separate process where there are currently severe limits on open slots. 12, 16, or 20 years as a guest worker is a great deal, especially since the completely justified alternative (had we not been so generous) is immediate deportation and forfeiture of assets. There’s no penalty, no “back taxes”, etc. (it’d be too much trouble to figure it out anyway), and we don’t care when you got here. We’re even going to make it so people who take advantage of you are going to get nailed. The new deal starts now. But you can’t put down roots here unless you apply the hard way like everyone else. The best way to do that is stay in the program, and in a decade or so, with the border as secure as anyone’s front door, Congress may be amenable to raising the quotas enough to allow large numbers of the deserving to stay.”