Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Which Babies Are Real Americans?

By Priscilla Huang, TomPaine.com. Posted February 21, 2007.


Anti-immigration hysteria and anti-choice propaganda come together in a neat and terrifying package.
Advertisement

Yuki Lin , born on the stroke of midnight this New Year’s, became the winner of a random drawing for a national Toys “R” Us sweepstakes. The company had promised a $25,000 U.S. savings bond to the “first American baby born in 2007.” However, Yuki lost her prize after the company learned that her mother was an undocumented U.S. resident. Instead, the bond went to a baby in Gainesville, Georgia, described by her mother as “an American all the way.”

The toy retailer soon found itself in the midst of the country’s heated immigration debate. Under mounting pressure, Toys “R” Us reversed its decision and awarded savings bonds to all three babies, including Yuki. The issue of citizenship was at the heart of this controversy: Is a baby born to undocumented immigrants an American in the same way that a baby born to non-immigrant parents is? Since the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil, both babies have equal standing as citizens. Not all people, however, view citizenship this way. As the grandmother of the Gainesville baby told reporters, “If [the mother is] an illegal alien, that makes the baby illegal.”

Today’s immigration debate extends beyond the goal of limiting the rights and humanity of immigrants: It’s about controlling who may be considered an American. Anti-immigrant activists contend that American citizenship is not about where you were born, but who gave birth to you. By extension, they believe -- the 14th amendment notwithstanding -- that the government must limit the reproductive capacities of immigrant women. Thus, immigrant women of childbearing age are central targets of unjust immigration reform policies.

Anti-immigrant groups, such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), believe immigrant women of childbearing age are a significant source of the country’s so-called “illegal immigration crisis” and want to limit the number of immigrant births on U.S. soil. They are calling for changes to jus soli, our birthright citizenship laws. Unfortunately, some Congressional members are listening.

In the last two sessions of Congress, lawmakers introduced the Citizenship Reform Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny birthright citizenship to children of parents who are neither citizens nor permanent resident aliens. The bill was reintroduced last month by Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif, and is pending committee action.

Groups like FAIR assert that immigrant women enter the U.S. to give birth to “anchor babies,” who can then sponsor the immigration of other relatives upon reaching the age of 21. They further contend that “anchor babies” and their families create a drain on the country’s social service programs. The irrational stance of anti-immigrant advocates echoes that of 1990’s welfare reformers. Both assume that childbearing by immigrants or poor women of color creates a cycle of poverty and dependence on the government. Immigrant women and women on welfare are depicted as irresponsible mothers and fraudulent freeloaders.

They’re wrong. Several studies have shown that immigrants -- documented and undocumented -- access social welfare services at much lower rates than U.S.-born citizens. Furthermore, under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, new immigrants are barred from accessing Medicaid benefits for five years, and sponsor liability rules often render many of these immigrants ineligible for services even after expiration of that restriction. And there is no evidence of intergenerational welfare dependency between immigrant parents and children.

Not surprisingly, pregnant immigrant women have become targets for deportation by immigration officials. On February 7, 2006, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials tried to forcibly deport Jiang Zhen Xing, a Chinese woman pregnant with twins. While her husband and two sons waited for her to complete what should have been a routine interview in a Philadelphia immigration office, ICE officials hustled Mrs. Jiang into a minivan and drove her to New York’s JFK airport for immediate deportation back to China. After complaining for hours of severe stomach pains, she was eventually taken to a hospital where doctors found that she had suffered a miscarriage.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: immigration, 14th amendment, federation of american im, fair, toys "r" us

Priscilla Huang is the Reproductive Justice Project Director and Women’s Law Fellow at the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF ), an organization advocating social justice and human rights for Asian Pacific-American women and girls.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If you believe Earth has too many humans then citizenship through birth has a major con.
Posted by: aouie01 on Feb 21, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It runs the risk of some "illegal aliens" procreating in order to gain legal status. Not commenting on other aspects of the issue or the article.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George Bush & the AlterNet - 2 peas in the open-borders pod!
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 21, 2007 12:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The AlterNet staff could plead ignorance at one time, but it now seems that cyncism keeps this idiotic open-borders mentality being repeatedly shoved down our throats.

It is NOT an ecologically neutral situation to have serious overbreeders move to the most wasteful country on Earth. 3rd world birthrates COMBINED WITH 1st world appetites is the worst possible combination.

No amount of knee-jerk liberal race-baiting changes that. The more disingenuous you remain about our immigration-fueled population explosion, the less chance we'll get the neocons out of office.

And the more pressure this country will be under to try to rip off other countries' resources.

It's hard to believe the AlterNet staff doesn't understand these basic concepts -- they've certainly been presented in AlterNet comments enough by now.

On the other hand, it's equally difficult to believe the AlterNet staff is cynical enough to understand them, and then censor them.

Denial is like that, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goose the Gander
Posted by: edith on Feb 21, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if I give birth to a baby in China it's a Chinese citizen? Birth babies in Russia are automatically Russians? Why is the US so blessed that someone who is camping out here and gives birth here has produced a US "citizen". Everybody else can be racist but the US? I didn't realize the UN had declared the US to be international territory. No doubt, that would make Ms. Huang happy. Congress under the 14 the Amendment can enact legislation to clarify that someone here illegally is not really under the "jurisdiction" of the US because they are really under the "jurisdicition" of China, Israel or whatever nation they are a citizen of.

I would like to know if most nations agree with the author that where a baby "drops" determines citizenship. (I don't think the baby has much of a say, so the intent of the mom to violate US sovereignty just might be relevant, don't you think?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: fork
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: Obijuan
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: edith
» The amendment Posted by: TennMom
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: edith
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: xgroverx
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: erichoffer
» RE: Goose the Gander Posted by: igancedo
» German Citizenship Posted by: makeadifference
» Cut Off the Anchor Posted by: edith
» Consequences ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Muslim countries, abortion and family planning
Posted by: igancedo on Feb 21, 2007 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to set the record straight and in answer to the quote in the article, which would make us believe that Muslim countries are bent on conquering the world through overpopulation:

From: National Catholic Reporter in
HighBeam Encyclopedia

Islam maintains a view (derived from Aristotle and once shared by Catholicism) that the fetus is "ensouled," -- becomes a human person -- only later in the gestation process (at 120 days, according to Islamic tradition) and not at conception. Thus abortion, while not condoned in the early months, is not regarded as murder.
[...]
Other than a few states with small populations, such as Saudi Arabia, most major Muslim countries today have recognized that economic development and family planning go together. Not only more secular Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia, but even the Islamic Republic of Iran has major family planning programs. Iran has been promoting the two-child family, using local village mosques to get out the word to village women.

That was already in 1994. According to the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Iran had been permitted induced abortion under certain conditions, until it passed a a new law in 2005:

Under the earlier law, abortion before four months was permitted if the mother's life was at risk, but her husband's consent was mandatory. The new law in Iran permits termination of pregnancy during the first four months if the foetus is mentally or physically handicapped or if the mother's life is in danger. According to the new law, the woman's consent is sufficient to carry out the abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever heard of the American Movement called...
Posted by: Obijuan on Feb 21, 2007 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Quiverfull"?

Scary stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yep, scary stuff Posted by: plantland
» Great expectations... Posted by: Pat Kittle
Cherry-picking the law
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Feb 21, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical how leftists such as this author stand self-righteously on American law in insisting that anchor babies are full-fledged American citizens but want to ignore American law when it comes to those who come here illegally. If I and my friends, acquaintances, and business associates are any indicator of populist opinion that is lurking beneath the surface, this country is on the verge of exploding in civil war if insane rushes toward national suicide such as this continue (guess Temporary isn't as far off the mark as I once thought). With every accusation of "nativist" or "xenophobe" by those on the Left and squelching of mature, plain-spoken debate on these and other issues (i.e., Muslim immigration into the West), we move a little closer to such an explosion. A terrorist attack on our soil (especially if such terrorists enter illegally through Mexico) means it will happen overnight. You open-borders crowd better hope that doesn't happen, because, if it does, you're going to see the average mild-mannered American become a fucking savage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: BKLN
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Actually ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You're hilarious Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: xgroverx
» Yes, and ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» There's no "broad" movement...YET Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: There's no "broad" movement...YET Posted by: Joshua Holland
» I disagree!!!! Posted by: freedomhawk
» Give me a break Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Give me a break Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I disagree!!!! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not hysteria, FACT Posted by: xgroverx
» Grammar 101 Posted by: freedomhawk
» I am embarrassed for you. Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: I am embarrassed for you. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» our education system Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: our education system Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Cherry-picking the law Posted by: imntacrook
Blurring the issue!!!
Posted by: freedomhawk on Feb 21, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, someone has used the issue of immigration to rehash a number of personal beliefs that have little or nothing to do with the actual issue.

The issue of "anchor babies" has to do with the illegal immigrants within this country. Illegal immigrant, pregnant women cross the border and then go to hospitals for delivery. In the United States, hospitals are required to provide care for anyone in need, regardless of residency status or insurance. The issue of these pregnant illegals demanding free health care to anchor themselves and their families within the US has forced the closure of at least eight hospitals within the Los Angeles area alone.

I have to admit that the author cleaverly blended the issue of illegal and legal immigrants, even though the two have nothing in common. What part of ILLEGAL does she not understand? These people are more than merely undocumented; they are in the process of committing a felony invasion of US soil. For that reason alone, the children born from these women should not be granted citizenship. The issue of children born to legally admitted aliens is clearly documented in the Constitution.

I think that the intended purpose of this article was to attack anti-abortion advocates through another venue, although the author lost all cohesiveness of process by attacking the attempts to quell the horrendous problem of illegal immigration. The Federal government has mounds of paperwork that proves this to be problem.

The North Dakota case had nothing to do with legal immigrants. The quotes provided clearly demonstrate that. This article never maintained a cohesive thought process, making a comment very difficult and time consuming. I truly do not understand what the real purpose of the article was, because the article never defended the purpose statement given at the beginning. By attempting to blur issues, she mangled her entire premise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blurring the issue!!! Posted by: catnapping
» RE: Blurring the issue!!! Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: white people like you ? Posted by: zipper696
» RE: Blurring the issue!!! Posted by: Mal'ak
» catnapping and flaming Posted by: BKLN
» RE: catnapping and flaming Posted by: EagleMB
Babies born here are citizens, period.
Posted by: youngdem on Feb 21, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The country probably should be doing more to prevent illegal immigration, although at this point, that probably means making immigration from some countries easier, but cracking down hard on those who don't go through it, on the grounds that some screening is better than no screening, which is what is happening now.

But, once a baby is born in the United States, they're a citizen. To do otherwise creates a second-class citizens living in the United States. It doesn't benefit anyone to have more uninsured, undocumented, and uneducated people living here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Way to go!? Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Way to go!? Posted by: catnapping
» Slavery Posted by: Mal'ak
» Already a lower class here Posted by: kathat
More Bush Lipservice
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 21, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not forget that Immigration has EVERYTHING to do with Globalization/World Government. PNAC wants to combine Canada, the US and Mexico into basically one country. Ignoring the US/Mexico border is the beginning of this. There are many benefits for the Neocons if this happens: 1) cheap labor 2) loss of any remaining bargaining power of labor unions 3) harder for US citizens to escape a military draft 4) increased pressure on central/south America, any many more.

Strong borders are an absolute necessity if America is to continue to exist! If we truly have a failed state on our southern border, then we need to assist them in solving their issues, instead of accepting Mexican refugees.

If the US continues to ignore this issue, then the American people will have to form a militia to patrol this border area. Thankfully, we have the great patriots called The Minutemen, who have stepped up to the challenge.

If you are for illegal immigration, then you are also pro-Bush, and pro-Globalization.


Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Bush Lipservice Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: More Bush Lipservice Posted by: xgroverx
» RE: More Bush Lipservice Posted by: sheena2u
nationalism is archaic
Posted by: mary-alias on Feb 21, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Borders are anachronistic. Those of you out there who oppose so-called illegal immigration should take a closer look at every single thing you consume. That tomato in your fast food burger was probably picked by "illegal aliens", and the list could go on and on.

Grow up, kids, time to learn how to share nicely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nationalism is archaic Posted by: imntacrook
Flip Side
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 21, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I can move to any other country without restriction I'll listen to those who support the current ignorant citizenship policies of the United States. How may countries, even English speaking, allow Americans to migrate without highly restrictive quotas to migrate? (sound of crickets) The laws should be amended to require that a child to be born to an American parent in order to qualify for citizenship.

I saw an interesting video the other day of how the Mexican Government treats illegal aliens coming into southern Mexico. It looked like the gestapo in full flower. Yes, the same Mexican government that thinks it is O.K. to flood the US with it's citizens and passes out water and food for the trek across the US-Mexican border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flip Side Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Flip Side Posted by: fork
» RE: Flip Side Posted by: xgroverx
So typical of the fascist to disregard the CONSTITUTION
Posted by: catnapping on Feb 21, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's cut and dried:

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.

PERIOD.

The only way our racist congressmen can legally change the law is by getting and new amendment. Oh wait! Legal? Constitutional? oops. I forgot. We're talking about nazi republicans, again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Disregarding the CONSTITUTION? Posted by: VisionQuest
» Try again pat Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Nope Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Nope -- Yup! Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: Nope -- Yup! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Honest indeed ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
My immigrant ancestors
Posted by: fluffmuffinmom on Feb 21, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution sure came in handy when MY ancestors immigrated from Lithunia and France in the early 1900s. My great-grandparents were anchor babies!! And don't counter with more reactionary racist B.S. about their parents being "legal" . . . the real difference is that they were "white" (whatever that means) and that's why they were welcome. I am constantly amazed by people who are blessed to be Americans only because of the opportunity of immigration yet insist on slamming the door shut behind them. You're all a bunch of a bunch of hateful racists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My immigrant ancestors Posted by: kathat
» Funny Posted by: bookie
» RE: My immigrant ancestors Posted by: xgroverx
» RE: My immigrant ancestors Posted by: kathat
» Please read my article... Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: My immigrant ancestors Posted by: sheena2u
» Spoiled children Posted by: Mal'ak
» And the Chinese were... Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: And the Chinese were... Posted by: janakiblum