Behind the 'Anchor Baby' Anger

If a friend utters the term "anchor baby," consider a polite confrontation in defense of baby citizens. Tell your friend that "anchor baby" is a cruel and judgmental label, assuming the worst of men and women who migrate to this country and produce a child. Explain that it's an attack on the U.S. Constitution.

Also explain that birthing an American citizen does nothing whatsoever to keep an illegal immigrant anchored in the United States. Tell your friend our country NEEDS more children in order to fund future Social Security, other pensions and all other aspects of our economy.

The latest evidence used by those who would unravel the 14th Amendment — which grants citizenship to children born in this country — is a statement by U.S. Sen. Jacob Howard, made when Congress wrote the 14th in the 1860s. Howard said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ..."

It's odd they would use this. In this sentence, Howard explains that the 14th Amendment would not apply to foreigners, whom he also refers to as "aliens" in an interrupting clause set off by commas. So the word "aliens" in this context is nothing more than another term for "foreigners." After the interrupting clause, the sentence explains exactly which type of "foreigners" Howard speaks of. He speaks only of foreigners "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the United States government."

In other words, he was specifying that the 14th Amendment does not apply to a particular foreigner with unique, negotiated status in the United States.

This had to be specified in order to protect foreign diplomats, as no country would send a representative to the United States if it meant that person's offspring would become U.S. citizens. This was handled in the actual amendment with the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That phrase could apply to no one other than foreign diplomats.

Illegal immigrants are most definitely "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. If this weren't true, illegal immigrants could not be arrested and prosecuted for crimes. We cannot arrest and prosecute foreign diplomats, because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Again, the 14th Amendment means exactly what it says.

The United States was desperate for immigrants when the 14th Amendment was written. Our immigration quota system was more than a half-century away. Nobody was fretting about immigrants. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that Congress wrote an amendment granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil while making sure to exclude "illegal immigrants." We were a nation of citizens and noncitizens, period.

If the 14th Amendment had been intended only for babies born to citizens, it could easily have been written as such. But the intent was to grant citizenship to the offspring of slaves, who were not citizens. So we wrote and ratified an amendment that grants citizenship to all persons born within U.S. jurisdiction. It exempts only those who aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Not being subject to U.S. jurisdiction means only one thing: U.S. laws do not apply. Individuals who enjoy such immunity, as established in treaties with the United States, are foreign diplomats, their spouses and their children.

People at war with our youngest citizens will not prevail in trying to distort the 14th Amendment. They would be wiser to try to amend the Constitution. Better yet, they'll turn to something constructive.

REPRINTED FROM THE NORTHWEST FLORIDA DAILY NEWS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM