Steve King: "Birthright Citizenship" Bill Could be Soon
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
/ AP Photo/Charlie NeibergallIowa Republican Rep. Steve King said in an interview with CBS News today that he is "looking at dropping a bill early in the 112th Congress" to end the practice of giving U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
King, who will likely head the immigration subcommittee when the new Congress begins work in January, predicted that hearings on the bill would not be immediate, since there are "other priorities" to be dealt with. He said he expected hearings "in the next couple months" after the legislation is introduced.
The practice of offering citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States is known as "birthright citizenship," and defenders say it is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment opens this way: "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."
King says that the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that babies born to illegal immigrants do not necessarily have Constitutionally-protected citizenship rights. He also argues that it is important to consider the history behind the amendment, which was adopted in 1868.
"The 14th Amendment and that specific clause was put in place immediately post-Civil War for the purpose of ensuring that babies born to newly freed slaves would be American citizens," he said, adding that it had nothing to do with citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
At left, King discusses the issue on Fox News Friday.
King told CBS News that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause was included at the time to exempt babies born to diplomats and certain Native Americans who were living on reservations, and that the clause can also be applied to children born to illegal immigrants.
The Iowa congressman argues the change is necessary because of an "anchor baby industry" that exists to exploit the law, which he says incentivizes immigrants to enter the United States to have children. King says that between one in six and one in 12 (or between 340,000 and 720,000) babies born in the United States are born to illegal immigrants, who take advantage of the baby's legal status to gain government benefits.
Those on the other side say the number of people who are motivated to come to America to create "anchor babies" is small and argue it could be dealt with by outlawing the practice, not eliminating birthright citizenship.
Eliminating birthright citizenship "would punish the innocent children of undocumented immigrants, which flies in the face of American values," according to Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center.
Asked about criticisms that eliminating birthright citizenship goes against the American values of inclusiveness, King said that by critics' arguments "everybody born on the planet should be included" as citizens.
"You have to draw the line somewhere," he said.
As McClatchy reports, Republican Reps. Tom McClintock and Dan Lungren are among those who agree with King on the issue.
Americans are split on birthright citizenship: 49 percent said in an August CBS News poll that the law should be kept as it is, while 47 percent said it should be changed.
King said he believes a law to change the policy should be passed without worrying about potential legal challenges. If the law is ultimately struck down in the courts, King said, he would push for a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue, though he acknowledged "it would be difficult" to get an amendment passed.
If a law ending birthright citizenship passes the House, it would still need to get through the Democrat-led Senate and then be signed into law by President Obama to take effect - an unlikely proposition. King said he views his effort as just one step in a process, comparing his work on birthright citizenship to the six years he spent working to make English Iowa's official language, which took place in 2002.
"I have a perspective about the degree of difficulty, but I think you have to do the right thing," he said.
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
From the CBO:
CBO released a report on the impact of unauthorized immigrants on state and local government budgets. Most analysis have found that the fiscal impact of immigrants as a whole (both legal and unauthorized, and including all levels of government) is slightly positive - the tax revenues generated by immigrants exceed the cost of the government services they use.
You two really need to do some research. Stop listening to one side of the discussion, and don't believe for a minute that what the right wing news networks and radio pundits are telling you is the "whole" truth.
This goes for the left as well. Money has become the driving force of our country (look up "what is a Plutocracy") , and we as Americans have grown so lazy and flat out stupid we no longer put up a fight.
It's somewhat telling that even in your "argument" (or a perfect example of a Straw man Argument, and basically the embarrassing face of the GOP right now) you show only the absolute worst scenario and present it like it's the norm. When the reality is, this makes up a tiny percentage. However, it stirs up the uneducated, least informed and lazy among us. And as I said before, if you'd go look up the numbers you'd recognize your embarrassing lack of knowledge on the topic.
The numbers are there for you to find, go to the CBO and look them up. Stop making it so easy for someone to manipulate you.
It takes work to uncover the truth on both sides, and we as Americans, both left and right have grown lazy and ignorant. We walk around pounding our chests proclaiming are greatness without ever doing the work. Are Grandfathers of 80 years ago would weep.
I take it you thinks its fair to tax payers that someone
walks across our border squats and drops a child should have the right to apply for welfare, foodstamps, free housing and schooling for the rest of thier lives (parents and children). YOU ARE A SICK COOKIE. LETS HEAR A BIG AMEN FOR MR. KING AN AMERICAN WE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR!
The below poem is fastened to the statue of liberty. This is my America.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-------------------------
What part of you libs doesnt understand "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."?????
Let's break it down for you like preschool teachers have to do for 4 year olds.
It first says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States..." That means if you are born here or if you have been allowed to become a citizen here.
The next word in the key. You see, it isnt just "all person born in the United States..." There is more to the sentence. There is an "AND" there. That means that everything before the "AND" and everything after the "AND" must be true.
So, here is that..."AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Okay, so if you are born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. Or, if you are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then you are a citizen.
Now, it will take a little lesson in logic here for you liberals (I know that isnt your strong suit) so let's give it a try.
Now, if you are born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are you a citizen based on this law? Well, of course not! First off, the "AND" is key. You must be either born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Now, they didnt write this because everyone born here is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were, then there would be no need for the last half of the sentence including/after the "AND". We could just say "All persons born in the United States or naturalized are citizens." Done.
But that is NOT what they said. They said they must be born or naturalized AND be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Now, who would be born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Who do you think they meant by that? Who is included in that group?
Well, they told us. They told us the plain meaning of jurisdiction in this case means that if you are a citizen of another country, then you are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. And then they listed out a few examples, like diplomats, foreigners not naturalized, etc.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.