During his first swing through Florida, Fred Thompson publicly
mulled over the idea of repealing birthright citizenship — the
concept embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment that all those born in
the United States are entitled to citizenship and the rights and
benefits (e.g. voting) that go with it. Proponents of the idea
argue that if illegal immigrants’ children are not allowed to
establish citizenship their parents will be deterred from entering
illegally. Florida, with a substantial Hispanic immigrant
population, may not have been the best place to raise this issue
and local press reports seized on this as another of Thompson’s
early “gaffes.” Thompson spokeswoman Karen Hanretty hastened to
explain that Thompson was not making a formal proposal.
Nevertheless it is worth considering whether Thompson’s idea has
merit, how the politics of repealing birthright citizenship would
play out, and where that leaves us in the immigration debate.
Thompson, of course, is not the first conservative politician to
raise this idea. Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal and 70
co-sponsors tried to tack a no-birthright-citizenship provision
onto the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration
Control Act of 2005, but the bill passed the House without it. Deal
has introduced a similar measure, HR 1940, in the current Congress.
Immigration-restrictionist groups like NumbersUSA have advocated
Congressional action, arguing that “an entire industry has built up
around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of
pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States
each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as
Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil.”
However, several of the primary combatants in the immigration
debate seem less than enamored of changing birthright citzenship.
Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian, a
leading voice in opposing President Bush’s immigration policies,
had this take in response to my inquiry: “I’m as outraged as anyone
about illegal aliens having citizen kids, but I don’t think it’s a
good strategy for us, since it’s a symptom of excessive illegal
immigration, not a cause. Besides, all the political effort it
would take to change the citizenship rule would better be spent
trying to get the government to enforce the law.” As a public
relation matter he also warns off conservatives, saying that “going
after little kids…is never a political winner.”
Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, who favors comprehensive
immigration reform, also argues that ending birthright citizenship
is not a fruitful way to address illegal immigration. He notes that
we should not lightly tamper with “established Constitutional
doctrine” and that even if proponents were to overcome legal
hurdles it is unwise to create a “permanent underclass” of
non-citizens as is the case in Germany and other European
countries. He acknowledges that the lure of citizenship for their
children is a motivating factor for some to illegally enter the
country but warns that the downsides of such a measure are “too
great” to justify the benefit of deterring some who want to enter
illegally.
Moreover, the suggestion that birthright citizenship might be
tampered with has not won praise in Florida, a critical state in
the Republican primary race. State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami (a
key Hispanic leader in Florida not yet supporting a presidential
candidate), was quoted in the Orland Sentinel as arguing
that repealing birthright is a “xenophobic” idea that would damage
the GOP with Hispanic voters. He remarked: “At best, this would be
seen as mean-spirited. At worst, it’s seen as bigotry.” Al
Cardenas, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and
Mitt Romney’s National Hispanic Steering Committee chairman, has
also spoken out against the idea.
So if this suggestion does not seem to be a viable proposal,
where do we stand on immigration reform? For opponents of Bush’s
comprehensive approach, no news may be just fine. Krikorian
explains: “I don’t see any enforcement bill coming out of the
Congress, but that doesn’t bother me — what I really want is the
administration to show it’s willing to start enforcing the laws we
have now.”
Those who praised the Bush effort and hope that a comprehensive
plan will eventually come about are not optimistic that anything
can be done in the short term. Griswold contends that we are in a
full employment economy and that immigration — whether legal or
illegal — will need to meet the shortfall of approximately 500,000
workers each year for the foreseeable future. According to
Griswold, the “situation will have to get worse” before another
immigration reform effort is possible, and in all likelihood not
until a new president takes office.
As for the other Republican presidential candidates, most for
now are stressing border security and are mum about legalization
for those workers who would remain after border security and
employer sanctions are enacted. Even John McCain, who helped father
the recent immigration reform effort, seems chastened by the effort
and repeatedly concedes that so long as the American people have
“lost faith” in the government’s ability to control our borders
comprehensive reform will be stalled for now. Mitt Romney stresses
border security and removing “magnets” including employment for
illegals and “sanctuary cities” (a clear swipe at his opponent Rudy
Giuliani who Romney contends favored such an approach as New York
City mayor). Giuliani puts forth a robust border security plan and
proposals for biometric I.D. cards and employment verification
system — insisting that only when all that is in place can we
discuss some legalized status for those still here. And after the
foray into the birthright citizenship debate, even Thompson has
largely emphasized the need for border security.
So for as long as a political stalemate prevails in Washington
both parties seem content. Democrats can bemoan the lack of a
comprehensive plan without having enacted a plan that was sure to
anger labor unions. Republicans can assure their political base
that a comprehensive plan and any form of “amnesty” are off the
table. In that regard, there seems little incentive to push for
abolishing birthright citizenship, or any other plan, which would
revive the immigration debate in the near term. Immigration, like
so many other contentious issues, therefore will likely not be
resolved until the next president takes office.
