MSNBC
By Amanda Sakuma
August 18, 2015
Donald
Trump is sending the immigration debate reeling to the right – and
taking the crowded GOP presidential pack along with him – by essentially
calling to change the
U.S. Constitution in order to combat illegal immigration, a policy
prescription previously championed only by the most anti-immigrant
firebrands in the Republican Party.
Now the idea is going mainstream.
Calls
to end so-called “birthright citizenship” blew up within hours after
Trump released his first detailed policy proposal since spouting blanket
accusations about drug
dealers and rapists coming to the U.S. from Mexico. Candidates who had
previously supported banning automatic citizenship to any person born in
the U.S. clamored to prove they came up with the idea first. Others are
now being pressed to publicly address an
issue traditionally left in the fringe.
Since
the end of the Civil War, anyone born on U.S. soil has been granted
full rights and formal recognition as American citizens. It has been a
constitutional right for
generations, reinforcing our nation’s legacy as one founded by
immigrants and solidifying immigration as a key component of the
American Dream.
What
Trump is proposing is somewhat remarkable. Experts widely believe that
eliminating birthright citizenship would require, at least to some
degree, changing the Constitution.
Two-thirds of both houses of Congress would need to sign onto the plan.
Then three-fourths of state legislatures would need to ratify changes
to the 14th Amendment. It’s a lengthy process with countless hurdles
along the way, not to mention one carrying profound
implications in changing an amendment that granted the first steps
toward equal rights and dignity for freed slaves.
“A
constitutional amendment is an extraordinary political act to pull off –
even for Donald Trump,” said Michael Fix, president of the Migration
Policy Institute.
Trump’s
position hardly makes him an outlier. The GOP presidential field had
already begun taking an aggressive lurch to the right on legal
immigration before the celebrity
real estate mogul even entered the race. While politicians have largely
abandoned using the pejorative term “anchor babies” to describe
immigrants who plant firm roots in the U.S. by having children born as
American citizens, the topic comes up frequently
in conservative circles. Others warn of “tourism babies,” decrying
pregnant women who give birth during their vacations to the U.S.
“We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tweeted Monday.
“I
am not a big fan of the idea that you come and have a child, you are
automatically a citizen,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told NBC
News’ Kelly O’Donnell on
Monday.
Gov.
Scott Walker, who used to be relatively moderate on the issue but has
since tacked far to the right on legal immigration, told msnbc’s Kasie
Hunt on Monday that he
too would consider banning birthright citizenship. Former Pennsylvania
Sen. Rick Santorum wrote in an op-ed in May that he considers birthright citizenship to be an unnecessary “enticement” for illegal immigration.
“Only children born on American soil where
at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a
U.S. citizen,” he wrote.
Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul even introduced a resolution in 2011 to amend the
Constitution, requiring that citizenship be limited to those with at
least one parent who is
either a legal citizen, a legal immigrant or member of the armed
services. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie too has said in recent months
that he thinks the policy might need to be “re-examined.”
The
U.S. Supreme Court on multiple occasions has upheld that American citizenship is afforded to “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.”
Conservatives
have argued that the language is outdated and was not intended to
include the children of undocumented immigrants. Members of Congress
have tried on occasion
to circumvent a full constitutional amendment by introducing
legislation to leave out any ambiguity. Anti-immigrant firebrand Iowa
Rep. Steve King, who previously led the charge to end automatic citizenship through a measure to re-interpret the 14th Amendment,
has brought numerous such measures before Congress, the latest
introduced last spring.
A
survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2011, when calls to end
birthright citizenship were previously in vogue, a majority of the
public (57%) said they preferred
to keep things as they were. Another 39% said they would support
changing the Constitution. The scales were almost perfectly flipped
among self-identified tea party supporters, 57% of whom favored
eliminating birthright citizenship by altering the Constitution.
Bob
Dane, communications director for the conservative group Federation for
American Immigration Reform, said the conservative base favors reducing
the undocumented population
in the U.S. “It’s a holdover from another era – it’s now manipulated
and abused by illegal aliens to gain unfair citizenship for their
children,” he said.
Researchers
say it would do just the opposite. The Migration Policy Institute
estimated that legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship would
cause the undocumented
population to explode, rising from an estimated 11 million people in
2010 to 16 million by 2050.
“The likelihood that it will achieve the effects its proponents say it will achieve is slim,” Fix said.
The
latest emphasis on curbing legal immigration is not without its
ironies. President Obama’s most vocal critics often say his executive
actions on immigration – allowing
as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain temporarily in
the U.S. – amount to executive overreach.
Nearly
all GOP presidential candidates have vowed to end those executive
actions to varying degrees, calling the measures an assault on U.S.
liberties and patently unconstitutional.
But the idea that many GOP candidates are now offering up? Re-write the
Constitution.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment