| Revision as of 13:56, 27 March 2008 edit198.97.67.59 (talk) fixed typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 27 March 2008 edit undo198.97.67.56 (talk) →Birthright citizenship: readded US v Wong Kim Ark and provided a sourceNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Anchor baby''' or ''jackpot baby'' are terms used to refer to a child born in the ] to ] or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal alien's child, as a US citizen, in facilitating ] under the provisions of the ]. These terms have been characterized in ] as ]<ref></ref>, and in anonymous letters to the editor of the Chicago Tribune as derogatory<ref> '''anchor baby:''' a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.</ref>, ]<ref name="chicagotribune2"> August 18, 2006, ], ], "'They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future."</ref>. | '''Anchor baby''' or ''jackpot baby'' are terms used to refer to a child born in the ] to ] or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal alien's child, as a US citizen, in facilitating ] under the provisions of the ]. These terms have been characterized in ] as ]<ref></ref>, and in anonymous letters to the editor of the Chicago Tribune as derogatory<ref> '''anchor baby:''' a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.</ref>, ]<ref name="chicagotribune2"> August 18, 2006, ], ], "'They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future."</ref>. | ||
| ==Use of the term== | |||
| Those who use the term "anchor baby" do so to describe a process by which a U.S.-born child (whose parents are not U.S. citizens or ]) would become the "anchor" of a chain by which its family would receive benefits from ], and through which the parents themselves might eventually become lawful permanent residents or citizens of the ]. It should be noted, however, that under current U.S. law, a U.S.-born child cannot sponsor his or her alien parents for immigration to the United States until reaching adulthood, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the U.S. | |||
| A related term is "]", which describes women who travel on temporary visas in order to give their children birthright citizenship. | |||
| ==Controversies== | ==Controversies== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 9: | ||
| ==Birthright citizenship== | ==Birthright citizenship== | ||
| {{main|Birthright citizenship in the United States of America}} | {{main|Birthright citizenship in the United States of America}} | ||
| The ] of the 14th amendment states, | |||
| According to the ] of the ], anyone who is "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the ] thereof" is a citizen of the United States. | |||
| <blockquote>''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.''</blockquote> | |||
| ], the ] from ] who introduced the citizenship clause to the Senate for vote<ref>http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html</ref>, stated in debate in ] in ] that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" would not be considered U.S. citizens despite their having been born in the U.S.<ref>, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2980 (], ]).</ref> (the debate arose from fear by some, such as Senator Cowan from Pennsylvania, that the clause was too permissive as to who could be a citizen (by including Gypsies and Chinese) - Howard's statement defended the clause against such concerns) | |||
| ⚫ | The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment,<ref name="heritage">{{cite book | ||
| Exactly what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and who is included or excluded by this phrase, has been a subject of controversy over the years. ], a ] from ] who helped draft the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated in debate in ] in ] that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" would not be considered U.S. citizens despite their having been born in the U.S.<ref>, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2980 (], ]).</ref> Despite Howard's assertions about the original intent of Congress on this subject, the ] ruled in an ] case<ref>''],'' 169 U.S. 649 (1898).</ref> that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of ]<ref>Indians born in the United States gained recognition as U.S. citizens as a result of the ].</ref>; and, accordingly, that a man born in the United States to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment despite ] barring Chinese immigrants from naturalization. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| |pages=385-386 | |pages=385-386 | ||
| |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXeesC&pg=PA385&vq=wong+kim+ark&dq=%22the+heritage+guide+to+the+constitution%22&sig=YrXqQZRCOTmvYgfEwxv7ZH7Uwlc | |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXeesC&pg=PA385&vq=wong+kim+ark&dq=%22the+heritage+guide+to+the+constitution%22&sig=YrXqQZRCOTmvYgfEwxv7ZH7Uwlc | ||
| Line 38: | Line 33: | ||
| |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | ||
| |date=2007 | |date=2007 | ||
| }}</ref> | |||
| }}</ref> Many opponents of chain immigration and birth tourism have advocated limiting birthright citizenship in the United States, either by urging Congress to enact legislation supporting their interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, or else by proposing amendments to the Constitution which would supersede the Citizenship Clause and deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of aliens.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The Supreme Court ruled in '']''<ref>http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/ELK_V_WILKINS_1884.HTM</ref>, {{ussc|112|94|1884}} that being born in United States territory is not sufficient for citizenship. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| In the case of '']''<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649</ref>, {{ussc|169|649|1898}}, the Supreme Court ruled that a person who | |||
| *is born in the United States | |||
| *of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power | |||
| *whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States | |||
| *whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject | |||
| becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 19:18, 27 March 2008
Anchor baby or jackpot baby are terms used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal alien's child, as a US citizen, in facilitating chain migration under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. These terms have been characterized in Signs on San Diego as pejorative, and in anonymous letters to the editor of the Chicago Tribune as derogatory, dehumanizing.
Controversies
On August 17, 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn used the term "anchor baby" in reference to Saul Arellano, in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church, and advocating her arrest and deportation on immigration related charges. After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, "usually softened by quotations as in my column", and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future.
On August 23, 2007, the San Diego, California-area North County Times came under criticism from one of its own former columnists, Raoul Lowery Contreras, in a column titled "'Anchor babies' is hate speech", for allowing the term "anchor baby" to be printed in letters and opinion pieces.
Birthright citizenship
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of AmericaThe Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment states,
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.
Jacob M. Howard, the Senator from Michigan who introduced the citizenship clause to the Senate for vote, stated in debate in Congress in 1866 that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" would not be considered U.S. citizens despite their having been born in the U.S. (the debate arose from fear by some, such as Senator Cowan from Pennsylvania, that the clause was too permissive as to who could be a citizen (by including Gypsies and Chinese) - Howard's statement defended the clause against such concerns)
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment,, it has generally been assumed that they are.
Elk v. Wilkins
The Supreme Court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that being born in United States territory is not sufficient for citizenship.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
- is born in the United States
- of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
- whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
- whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
See also
- Chain immigration
- Illegal immigration
- Illegal immigration in the United States
- United States nationality law
- United States Constitution
References
- SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics - Immigration bill turned quiet voices into a roarSignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics - Immigration bill turned quiet voices into a roar
- "BUZZWORDS; GLOSSARY" December 24, 2006 - By GRANT BARRETT - Week in Review anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.
- Sinking 'Anchor Babies' August 18, 2006, Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, "'They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future."
- Deportation Standoff Not helping Cause August 17, 2006, Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune,
- http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
- Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2980 (May 30, 1866).
- The Heritage Foundation (2005). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. pp. 385–386. ISBN 159698001X.
- Erler, Edward J (2007). The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration: Principles and Challenges in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 67. ISBN 074255855X.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/ELK_V_WILKINS_1884.HTM
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649