The Big Question: Should the 14th Amendment be changed to address immigration concerns?

Every weekday, The Hill asks some of the nation’s top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals to offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today’s question:

Should the 14th amendment be changed to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship?


Alan Abramowitz, political science professor, Emory University:

Of course not. This is a terrible idea being promoted for purely political reasons by conservative Republicans pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment among their party’s base. Our nation has prospered throughout its history by attracting immigrants from all parts of the world, and an important part of the attraction of America to those generations of immigrants, including today’s immigrants, has been the promise of a better life for their children as American citizens. 

Bill Press, host of the “Bill Press Show” and a contributor to the Pundits Blog:

Absolutely not. Punishing children is no solution to today’s problem with illegal immigration, which, by the way, is far less serious than it was a few years ago. But, of course, nobody’s reporting that. Meanwhile, isn’t it amazing how Republicans brag about protecting the Constitution, yet are so quick to call for a Constitutional amendment whenever the cheap politics of the day gives them opportunity to create a new wedge issue? Such hypocrites!

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at the University of California-Irvine:

Yes. This amendment has led to incredible abuses through the perverse incentive of attracting illegals about to give birth for the purpose of being eligible for social welfare services not available in Mexico. 

Hal Lewis, physics professor at the University of California Santa Barbara:

Yes, it should be done, because depositing pregnant wives and girlfriends at the front doors of U.S. hospitals has become a racket. Constitutional scholars have studied what the Founding Fathers meant by that provision in the Constitution, and it was to assure citizenship for those who had been born here before independence, not to encourage the use of babies as an attack weapon. I would guess that an amendment to correct that oversight would be ratified in a heartbeat, if it ever got past congressional obstructionism.

John F. McManus, president, The John Birch Society:   

Preventing children of illegal immigrants from immediate citizenship at birth is an absolute necessity. But there’s no need to change the 14th Amendment (which could only be done by another amendment).

What needs to be done can be accomplished by congressional action. Clause 5 of the amendment states, “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Several years ago, a Georgia congressman (Nathan Deal) sought to have Congress address this matter and put an end to “anchor baby citizenship.” His attempt didn’t get very far.  A similar move today would gain much more support.

The wording of the 14th amendment was designed to grant citizenship to former slaves. That’s all.

A woman who enters the U.S. illegally is still subject to the jurisdiction of the country she left. She is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a requirement stated in the 14th for citizenship. To consider her child to have anything other than her identical status is ridiculous. 

Congress should act to do away with the policy known as “anchor baby citizenship.” 

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com:

The only way to change the Constitution would be to get a majority of the state legislatures to approve such a measure. Although I recognize that illegal immigration is a serious problem that has to be dealt with — unless, of course, we want to get rid of the whole idea of national borders — the problem is that we don’t want to get in the habit of changing the Constitution. That could lead to some unfortunate results 

Donald Kerwin, vice president for programs, Migration Policy Institute: 

In his first inaugural speech, President Bush characterized the United States as a nation “bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds” and that “lift us above our interests.”  What are these ideals?  “[E]veryone belongs,” “everyone deserves a chance,” and “no insignificant person was ever born.”  In the last State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “In the end, it is our ideals, our values that built America – values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still.”

What ideals underlie the effort to resurrect the Dred Scott decision and apply it to a class of American children?  How would it serve the nation’s interest to relegate children born here to lives with few rights, limited prospects, and no security?  How would such children contribute or be bound to the only country they might ever know?  Most of these children have no other history, civic tradition, or national home.  To paraphrase one young immigrant, the anthem they sing is the National Anthem, the pledge they recite is the Pledge of Allegiance, the language they speak is English, and their history is U.S. history.  The rule of law is a core value, but not one that these children have dishonored.  However, for those legislators who would try to pass a law to “clarify” the 14th Amendment’s plain language: how would it serve the rule of law to try to create a permanently “illegal” class of children through arguably illegal means?