Stateless Children / Anchor Babies
This post is a carryover from my previous post on adoption in Japan. The Japanese social services webpage admits that stateless children are a special problem. They recognize a responsibility to these children, but express some doubt as to how to best serve the interests of the child.
Unlike Japan (and most other countries in the world), American citizenship is conferred by birth alone. It's guaranteed by the Constitution. Our laws and social services are far from perfect, but I'm proud of this principle. It's also called "jus soli" or "right of the soil".
From Wikipedia:
Jus soli is common in countries in the Americas that wanted to develop and increase their own citizenry. It is still applicable in a few nations outside the Americas as well. Some countries that observe jus soli:
* Argentina
* Brazil
* Canada (There are some limitations concerning the children of foreign diplomats)
* Colombia
* Jamaica
* Mexico
* Pakistan
* United States (There are some limitations concerning the children of foreign diplomats. See Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
* Uruguay
It really irritates me when anti-immigrant pundits start railing against "anchor babies" and "birth tourism". Anchor-baby-hating anchor baby and all-around evil bitchtroll Michelle Malkin is constantly harping on this issue. If we change the law so that children born in the United States to non-citizens don't get citizenship, then what do we do with these children if they end up in the care of the state? Drop them off in a forest and hope a wolf pack adopts them? Turn them into sausages?
Foster Care System Perspectives
2 comments:
Oh, well, we have to turn them into sausages, of course...
I have a friend who is in an equally-bad situation brought on by the current immigration laws.
Her mother came from Mexico. It's unclear if she came legally, or became legal under one of the amnesty programs later on. My friend's mother is legal and her other children are legal. However, because mom "didn't get along" with my friend, she deliberately failed to file the paperwork to obtain my friend's resident alien card.
My friend, who has been here since childhood, is now here illegally, even though she doesn't know anyone in Mexico and all her family is here. She's scared to death she'll be caught by the INS and deported, but she can't do anything because she's now over 18 and doesn't have money to pay for an immigration attorney. Worse, she can't really get the money because she can't work legally.
"Anchor babies" are definitely a problem, but the immigration issues facing this country are so deep and complex that I think resolving them will take a lot more than simply denying those children citizenship.
Our daughter's best friend is here illegally, as is her entire family. If an entire family of ten people can figure out how to get across the border, work, and make a living for themselves, legislating away citizenship for babies born here will have no effect.
Hi fosterabba, I remember your posts about "Danielle's" friend! I agree with you and would also add that the issue of citizenship by birth on American soil can and should be considered separately from other immigration issues. No matter what course immigration reform takes, jus soli should remain. Otherwise, we would be establishing a permanently second-class citizen group, which seems deeply un-American and a step backwards toward Jim Crow and even slavery.
Post a Comment