State of the Union

Is Big Government Here to Stay?

How Not to Reform Immigration

By Michael Brendan Dougherty • July 29, 2010, 3:49 PM

Lindsey Graham opened up to Politico, announcing that he was thinking of drafting a Constitutional amendment to overturn birthright citizenship.

Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.”

“People come here to have babies,” he said. “They come here to drop a child. It’s called “drop and leave.” To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child’s automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.

Of course, Graham was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007. Back then dropped babies weren’t his concerns, rather he wanted to “tell the bigots to shut-up.”

There is no good reason for immigration restrictionists to soften up to Graham now. Overturning birthright citizenship doesn’t bring order or justice to America’s decades long problem of illegal immigration. There may be good reasons to think that overturning it would do little reverse illegal immigration, and much to prevent assimilation.

In any case, Graham’s re-framing of the immigration issue in one of the silliest and most counter-productive possible and his chosen method signals that he is not serious. Constitutional amendments are almost impossible to pass, especially in this age of gridlock and ideological sorting of parties. In other words, this is a stunt, just as his former denunciation of “bigots” was a stunt.

Posted in Uncategorized.

15 Responses to How Not to Reform Immigration

Gary Long says:

July 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm

Maybe Graham is’t serious, but there is good reason to stop handing out birth certificates to illegal aliens who claim gardianship of the children. Since it is legal for a gaurdian to make legal decisions for their wards who are not able to make the decisions themselve, the answer should be to simply ask the guardian who is in the country illegally whether they would rather sign the guardianship over to an American citizen, or denounce the childs American citizenship on their behalf so that they can take the child home. No third option should be given. The childs parents were acting on the childs behalf when they knowingly entered the country illegally, they should be able to continue to make legal decisions for the child until they relinquish custody or the child becomes of age – there simply is no logical reason that has to guarantee the parents free access to our land without gaining access through a due process of law.
MattSwartz says:

July 29, 2010 at 9:36 pm

A law ending birthright citizenship would be hard to enforce, and probably impossible to enforce justly and impartially. Are we to insist that every mother come to the hospital with her birth certificate? When women go into labor, they are often in a rush, after they bear their child, they are often sedated, and I’m not going to even start elaborating the complications that would arise when they have their children at home with a midwife, as healthy women should. What a terrible time to insert immigration enforcers and the lawyers they spawn!

No, what should be done is a proper enforcement of existing law: no visas issued to foreign nationals who appear visibly pregnant. Presto, no anchor babies, no Constitutional crisis, no enforcement boondoggle. All it would take is a single executive order clarifying that the letter of the law is to be enforced. Of course, that would also mean that Lindsey Graham would no longer be able to have it both ways, so nevermind.
TomB says:

July 30, 2010 at 4:39 am

Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote:

“In any case, Graham’s re-framing of the immigration issue in one of the silliest and most counter-productive possible….”

Well, maybe, especially if one violently disagrees with the kind of constitutional amendment he proposes, or if one is in favor of an effective amnesty.

But if one is against anything that *is* an effective amnesty, what’s wrong (much less “silly” or “counter-productive”) if other people take Graham’s idea and demand the passage of such an amendment as part if not the whole price for such an amnesty?

After all, there’s no reason to believe that there’s going to be any cessation of the demands for what amounts to yet another effective amnesty, right?

And, after all again, what’s been “given” before by the backers of the previous amnesties has turned out to be either nothing, or measures that turned out to be mean nothing by being subsequently gutted, ignored or etc.

So why again for people who are against another effective amnesty is Graham’s proposal necessarily “silly” or “counter-productive”?

True, it might well be insincere in some or indeed in all ways on Graham’s part, but that’s a different question.
TomT says:

July 30, 2010 at 8:20 am

Allow me to point out some holes in logic here.

First, if a foreignor who is documented as a diplomatic representative of their country, has a wife who has a baby in the US, under current law, that baby is NOT a citizen (unless one of the parents is).

The rest of the world does not allow anchor babies, only the US.

Nobody is suggesting that a hospital not provide care, nor are we suggesting that they refuse to give out a birth certificate. But it is a total NON SEQUITUR to then say it is easier to give out full citizenship rights without the parents providing documentation, than it would be to ask some questions first.

Finally, a close friend who is a Thai native and a widow of an American serviceman, after 20 years in the US, recently returned to Thailand, and was shocked to find that they no longer consider her a citizen of that country, even though some of her kids still are. She cannot buy property there, etc.

Finally, let me just briefly state how humiliating it is to find myself on the same side of anything where Lindsey Graham is. Like Mr Dougherty, I think the guy is an opportunist, and probably not sincere.
Red Phillips says:

July 30, 2010 at 2:47 pm

We must get rid of birthright citizenship if we are to make any headway on immigration, but an amendment is not necessary. Birthright citizenship is a misunderstanding/misapplication of the Constitution. It was not the original intent of the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to everyone born on American soil. It was intended to grant citizenship to the former slaves. The Congress could correct this misunderstanding through statute without the need for an impossible to pass amendment.
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:

July 30, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Actually there are open-borders advocates who argue for ending birthright citizenship. http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/204649/arizonas-latest-immigration-idea-makes-sense

The U.S. may be one of the only countries with birthright citizenship but Europe’s immigration and illegal immigration problems are much much worse than our own. Ending it is not a cure-all. Law enforcement would be a good beginning.
Matt says:

July 30, 2010 at 3:21 pm

I’m sure he’s being opportunistic, but I won’t complain if he wants to opportune in a sensible direction. Birthright citizenship has to end. It wouldn’t take an amendment, as the 14th amendment was only to apply to the newly freed slaves; not the mass of humanity as a whole.
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:

July 30, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Putting energy into a doomed Constitutional Amendment is a waste of time. He is not serious and he is wasting the time of serious immigration restrictionists.
TomB says:

July 30, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote of Graham’s proposal of a constitutional amendment that it is “wasting the time of serious immigration restrictionists.”

Okay, but given then the previous successes of immigration advocates in passing amnesties and otherwise providing immigration-friendly measures while essentially gutting any anti-immigration initiatives and even laws, what equally concrete, meaningful and probably popular proposal(s) do you then have that will stop, slow or force some real compromise from them?
Pingback: Arizona’s Law, Activist Judges, Anchor Babies (a very good review of varying opinions) « Immigration Litigation
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:

July 31, 2010 at 7:33 am

Actually the successes have been coming in for the restrictionists of late. The entire political establishment supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform (which included a path-to-citizenship/amnesty), and it was stopped dead.

Restrictionists have changed the debate to one of enforcement first and even got funds directed toward building a fence (not complete yet-obviously). I would say that restrictionists would be better served pursuing an attrition through enforcement strategy, and that in the absence of federal enthusiasm for the law, states should be creative, as Arizona is trying to be. Finish the danged fence, enforce the law, enforce quality of life laws at the local level, enforce employment laws on employers.

I really think it is important not to be distracted by an insincere Constitutional amendment that may not be helpful even if passed.
TomT says:

July 31, 2010 at 11:54 am

“restrictionists”

“immigration reform”

We fell for all that under Reagan. Now we want our borders secure. We let the thieves in DC know that under Bush.

The attempt to conflate other issues with “securing the border” is simply trickery by the thieves and special interests.

How you handle “assimulation”, whether by attrition or “path to citizenship” is IRRELEVANT to securing the border, except to the hucksters and thieves who would wish to hold “securing our borders” hostage to their larger political agendas.

“Anchor babies” is a larger issue than the caraciture you presented, as you forgot the mention the “anchor husbands and wives”, and issues of those illegals we give amnesty to, serving as magnets to a priveleged class of extended family they might wish to bring in after themselves.

None of this actually has anything to do with the artifically dangerous situation of not being able to identify who crosses our international borders, by those who refuse to enforce existing laws, in order to force their political agendas on the American public.

Poking someone who wants laws enforced with the pejorative “Restrictionists” is a dishonest caraciture, and would be in danger of tricking you into believing that you understood the issues.
Brittanicus says:

August 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm

The Arizona law and federal judge Bolton has opened yet another “Pandora’s box” and must be applauded, because her Liberal ideology has finally unlocked an avenue to the Supreme Court. Her injunction of SB 1070 has opened the eyes of more than half the population of the United States, which would have remained repressed by most of the Liberal press. National security points of Interest for the American people to address, includes an incompetent failure to secure the border. Not building the real—PAIRED PARALLEL FENCES–transversely over the 1800 miles, separating us from Mexico. Nor is it fully completed, however President Dwight Eisenhower had the monumental courage in 1954 to remove illegal nationals from America’s soil. Today’s politicians prefer to hide the illegal alien invasion, under the proverbial rug. One of the most scandalous laws that has been badly misconstrued is the 14th amendment, which needs urgently to be repealed—this is birthright citizenship.

Forget about the facade of hard luck stories of illegal parents, being separated from their birthright citizenship child as they are ought to be deported, but this seldom happens if at all? Legal basis for birthright citizenships stems from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to provide former slaves citizenship after the Civil War, including the right to due process. This Amendment has progressed to have far-reaching repercussions beyond the intent of the authors. The “Anchor Baby” illuminates the whole unraveling story, which if an illegal alien parent, can reach America before the baby is born, they can collect welfare from any state. In 2006 this was a $6 billion dollar “legal flimflam” unfairly supported by US taxpayers. In other developed nations one parent must be naturalized or citizen born in that country. These families knew exactly what they were exploiting when they came to the U.S. and had a baby born on U.S. soil, as the news of welfare entitlements spreads very quickly from poor country to country.

For illegal immigrants, having a child born in the U.S. becomes this intentional “Racket” to residing here in this land, the ramifications in 2007 was estimated to be 380.000 children annually that taxpayers forfeited in taxes. Birthright citizenship creates a massive fiscal burden on the US taxpayer. At the present time “Anchor babies” are United States citizens from the moment they’re born, and they immediately qualify for public welfare aid. Pro-Sovereignty organizations have called these children of pregnant illegal alien mothers “anchor babies” simply because they become eligible to sponsor for legitimizing most of their relatives (chain migration), including those in poor health. The illegal alien child, when they turn 21 years of age, become the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family. It has been said, over-and-over-again that birthright citizenship was never projected to be the law of the land, and thus is a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

To intensify this giant problem, those mothers who illegally enter the U.S. to have their anchor babies have little to no health insurance. While others prenatal mothers are not even poor, but have violated a moral problem by using fraudulent ID and come from every corner of the world. By law they cannot be turned away from hospitals because the law requires that they be treated. All uninsured people, regardless of citizenship, receive medical treatment in hospital emergency rooms under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA). The only difference is that American Mothers stand to be badgered by unrelenting debt collectors afterwards until they pay. And if there are any difficulties with the pregnancy, or if the child is born prematurely and needs to be admitted into a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, the expenditures upswings by thousands more dollars.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and other statesman has decided to pursue revoke the 14th amendment. A Rasmussen Poll found that 58% of Americans opposed granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, while only 33% supported it. The main problem most Americans cannot conceive the amount of money paid out to subsidize the onslaught of the illegal alien occupancy. Every saddled taxpayers should definitely type into Google or Yahoo “Anchor Babies cost’s” and be ready to use your politicians as a verbal punching bag at 202-224-3121

An issue that is not publicized by the left politicians is ant De Facto Amnesty or by executive order of the President. Would instantly turn into a public outrage as illegal aliens would be allowed to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment — even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents? Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has offered an amendment to gut that provision from any bill. He said, “There was a felony they were committing, and now they can’t be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me. U. S. Senators Who Voted For Illegal Aliens to Collect Social Security Benefits! Let them know what you think about this vote! Go to NumbersUSA for more information on this taxpayer nightmare.
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:

August 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Tomt

I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m a resttictionist. and Graham is not for enforcing the law, it’s just that in this case he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes with his idiotic amendment. lease don’t confuse his stunt with an attempt at law enforcement. As I implied in the post, the first thing we need to do is restore order at the border, and in our immigration system.
Pingback: Number 14… Number 14… Number 14 « Around The Sphere