Weekly Opinion Editorial
ANCHORS AWAY!
by Steve Fair
President Trump issued fifty-one (51) Executive Orders (XO) this week. From halting diversity programs throughout the federal government to withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), Trump wasted no time in overturning many of President Biden’s policies. Some of the XOs are clearly within the power of the presidency, but others will no doubt be challenged in court. The most controversial XO was titled, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Read it in its entirety at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
Trump stated the 14th amendment to the Constitution was never
meant to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United
States. He maintains that if the mother
was unlawfully present in the country and father was not a U.S. citizen, then
citizenship is not extended to their U.S. born offspring. Trump’s decree, if upheld in court, would
eliminate so called ‘anchor’ babies. An anchor
baby is a child that automatically becomes a U.S. citizen by being born on
American soil. They can help their
illegal parents avoid deportation or gain legal residency. Pew Research says over 300,000 babies were
born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants in 2024- 8% of the total births in the
country.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly described birthright
citizenship as "ridiculous" and something that needed to stop. The
U.S. is one of roughly 30 countries where birthright citizenship is
applied. Three observations:
First, birth tourism is not just from south of the border. Los Angeles is considered to be the center of
the maternity tourism industry. Catering
to wealthy Asian women, it is hard to shut down because its not illegal for a pregnant
woman to travel to the United States. In
2015, the feds raided three-multimillion-dollar birth tourism businesses in LA,
but none were closed. An estimated
15-20,000 Korean children are born to illegals each year. Pew found 41% of
illegal births each year in the U.S. are to Mexican citizens. Birth tourism is real and needs to be
addressed.
Second, the XO’s legality will be fought in court. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan
appointee, issued an order blocking Trump’s policy from taking effect for 14
days. "This is a blatantly
unconstitutional order," Coughenour said. Not everyone agrees.
Hans von Spakovsky, an attorney specializing in immigration, argues: “The
14th Amendment doesn’t say all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says “all
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” are citizens. A
tourist or illegal alien who violates our laws are not placing themselves
within the ‘jurisdiction’ of the United States.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), affirmed the language
of the 14th amendment in US vs. Wong. Since that time, any child born on American
soil has been granted citizenship. Can
the SCOTUS reverse the 1898 ruling? Sure,
but most legal experts say it is unlikely.
Third, the Constitution is
unlikely to be amended. The threshold is
high, which is why the founding document has only been amended 27 times. Article 5 of the Constitution outlines the amending
process. Two-thirds of Congress (House
and Senate) must vote to approve an amendment or two-thirds of state
legislatures can ask Congress to call a convention to propose an
amendment. The amendment must then be ratified
by three-fourths of state legislatures before the Constitution is amended.
Trump’s XO calls attention to one of the real issues of illegal immigration- birth tourism! Illegals traveling to the U.S. to exploit our generous citizenship laws without fully integrating into our society undermine the integrity of citizenship. If the SCOTUS rules the 14th amendment doesn’t extend citizenship to children of illegal immigration, it will be anchors away.
1 comment:
Hello, Steve.
I read your blog post and would like to give a little input. Birth tourism, as you have described, is indeed real and needs to be addressed. Your three main points imply that Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is dead on arrival and would require a constitutional amendment to go into effect, something that would be next to impossible given the polarity of our Congress.
I agree with that conclusion, but I am nonetheless concerned with the language you are using to describe foreign-born people giving birth in the United States. In your post, including the title, you include the word "illegal" eight times. One of those instances is this: "An estimated 15-20,000 Korean children are born to illegals each year."
The word "illegals" as used to describe a group of human beings is what I take issue with here. That is a dehumanizing term that paints those people as criminals, making no distinction between tourism and actual crime. Imagine coming to America as a pregnant woman and giving birth just to be called an "illegal" instead of another person whose life matters just as much as yours does.
Not everything is about citizenship, Steve.
You also cite a Pew Research statistic of 41% for "illegal births" to Mexican citizens. That terminology is also problematic. These are people, just like we are. They didn't get to decide where they were born. Being born is not a crime.
I would trust you to be more empathetic in your wording of your upcoming blog posts.
Post a Comment