US immigration debate heats up over proposed “Anchor Babies” law
The “birthright citizenship” movement in the United States has slowly grown over the years and has begun to accelerate more recently as the immigration debate heats up.
The “birthright citizenship” debate centers around the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution, which grants all individuals born on US soil legal right to citizenship. This rule has become a pivotal issue among anti-immigration activists who want to eliminate or alter the law to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the US simply to have children, referred to as “anchor babies.”
Constitution and pro-immigration activists say the proposal is unconstitutional and violates the supreme law of the United States, while anti-immigration activists claim this is a problem in need of an effective solution.
Bob Dane, the communications director of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) supports the legislation and said it is a positive step towards effectively helping the “besieged citizens of Arizona.”
“There are two major magnets why people come here illegally; the jobs magnet and the opportunity to have a baby,” said Dane.
Dane argued that the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was created for the protection of former slaves seeking citizenship after the US Civil War and is now being used as a "loop-hole."
“All these individuals who are proposing children born in the United States to undocumented parents should not gain US citizenship as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and I might add that it cost us a hell of a lot of blood to ensure that citizenship was extended to any child born in the United States. What do I think about this insane proposal?” said Juan Jose Gutierrez, the director of Vamos Unidos USA.
He continued, “These supposed defenders of the supreme law of the land are claiming something that is absolutely unacceptable. That in this day and age, rather than extending citizenship rights to those who deserve it we ought to take that away from children born in this country.”
Gutierrez argued that immigrants come to the US because they are seeking to escape poverty, as they have always sought to do. He stated that claims that assert immigrants come to the US solely for the purpose of having a child is false and “outrageous.”
“It’s racist and it’s really un-American,” said Gutierrez.
Dane argues otherwise.
“Right now 1 in 10 babies born in the United States, you’ve got 425,000 children born to illegal aliens in the United States each and every year. I mean, in California it’s almost 22%. The reasons people come are jobs and the reason people come are the opportunity to have a baby here. There is a right way and a wrong way to come to the United States and coming here, coming to the country illegally, having a child and then betting that you’re going to be able to stay is really gambling on your child’s future and then holding up your child and saying people don’t deport me because we’ll separate the family is using your child a s a human shield and it corrupts the rule of law,” said Dane.
Dane said Americans support the proposition. But he recognized that it will go before the courts, and either way he will respect the decision of the legal system.
“Americans cannot support this outrageous proposal,” said Gutierrez.
He argued that it will never receive the required 2/3 of every state legislature needed to alter the US Constitution.
“It is outrageous and racist that people should say that because parents who do not have documents are having children in this country that we should victimize infants that are coming into this world where they had absolutely no choice in the matter. I think to say that we should deny them citizenship at the same time that we’re claiming that were going and invading countries elsewhere in the world to promote democracy and denying it to children born in America is just unbelievable and the American people, the majority of them I believe, will not support that,” said Gutierrez.