While reading one of the many blogs I try to keep up with, I came across this question: "What is an anchor baby?" I think it interesting to take a brief look at U.S. Immigration Policy from a historical perspective prior to answering that question directly in order to understand it's implications.
It's sad to say, but I've heard this question many times before. “Anchor babies” have been around for a long time. As early as 1790, the United States government set about prescribing immigration policy and the first policies were intensely racist [but common for that period in history] in that persons could only become naturalized U.S. citizens if aliens were “free white persons” and persons of “good moral character”. Of course, there were residency requirements that had to be met, and the law stated that those children of U.S. citizens born outside of the United States were indeed U.S. citizens.
Under the definition of “white”, were citizens from European countries as well as, ironically, men from the Middle East. Also, the U.S. allowed Catholics to become citizens 50 years ahead of Great Britain, and Jews to become citizens ahead of France, which prior to the French Revolution did the same. Left out of citizenship status were indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians, as well as women.
In 1795, the U.S. naturalization Act of January 1795, replaced that of 1790. It still reserved naturalization only to “free white persons.” It changed the residency and application requirements and require that applicants:
“…take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States and also to renounce of his former sovereign.”
In addition to the declaration of intention and oath of renunciation, the 1795 Act required all naturalized persons to be:
“attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States” and be “well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”
The Naturalization Act of 1789, passed by Congress on June 18, 1798 It increased the amount of time necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from five to fourteen years.
Most historians conclude that this change was really intended to decrease the number of voters who disagreed with the Federalist political party by creating a 14 year barrier to being able to express themselves at the polls. At the time, most immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.
In 1802 this law was revised to include a number of minor revisions to alter or to clarify details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the protocol.
In 1855, the alien wives of U.S. citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, the naturalization process was opened up to include persons of African descent.
In 1875, The Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875) was the first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered bad. The law classified as undesirable any individual from China who was coming to America to be a contract laborer, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own country.
The law was named after Horace F. Page, a Republican Congressman in the United States House of Representatives who introduced the bill and “sought to end the danger of cheap Chinese labor and immoral Chinese women”. The Page Act was supposed to strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”. However, these provisions, as well as those regarding convicts “had little effect at the time” [due to the influence of businesses on government officials - sound familiar?]. On the other hand, the bar on female Asian immigrants was heavily enforced and proved to be a barrier for all Asian women trying to immigrate, especially Chinese.
May 8, 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed into law by Chester A. Arthur, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years.
In 1906, Congress transformed the Immigration Bureau to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and put it in charge of “all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens”.
On May 9, 1918, Congress stated, by statute, that any alien who had been a member of the Armed Forces for 3 or more years could file a petition for naturalization without proof of the 5-year residency requirement. The applicant who had been in the service during World War I was exempt from the requirement to file a declaration of intention. This act consolidated the previous statutes of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 597), which allowed waiver of the filing of a declaration if the applicant had a favorable discharge from the Army, and of July 24, 1894 (28 Stat. 124), which extended this provision to applicants discharged from the Navy or the Marines.
In 1921, the Emergency Quota Act was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. It limited immigration to 3% of the population of races already citizens of America based upon 1910 census data (one of the reasons ethnicity has been included in census data collection). This meant that for an entire year, only 357,802 immigrants were allowed entry and all of them had to come from nations already acceptable for citizenship and no others. They also could not change the balance of population percentages between ethnicities. Once again, the government mandated a highly racist method of determining qualification for citizenship.
On September 22, 1922, Congress enacted a law (42 Stat. 1021) that changed the naturalization procedure for married women. Before that date, women who were married to a U.S. citizen or naturalized citizen automatically became U.S. citizens by reason of the marriage. The new law required that any woman married after the date of enactment who desired to become a citizen must meet the requirements of the naturalization laws. No declaration of intention was needed, however, and the period of required residence was reduced from 5 years to 1 year.
The Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 153) enacted a policy of quota restrictions on immigration. It provided for an annual quota of immigrants (2% total) allowed entry into the United States and limited those persons eligible for naturalization to a number based on the ratio of the number of citizens of the same nationality already residing within the United States to the total U.S. population in 1920. The result of this law was that emigrants from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Ireland made up more than two-thirds of those eligible under the annual maximum quota.
In 1943, the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the Magnuson Act and marked the 1st time a Chinese resident in the United States could become a naturalized United States citizen since the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization act!
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163), more commonly known as the McCarran Act, revised the 1924 act by basing the annual quota on a flat one-sixteenth of 1 percent of the population as recorded in the 1920 census. More important, it limited race as a barrier to immigration and naturalization by assigning a quota of not fewer than 100 persons to countries whose citizens were previously ineligible for naturalization. However, it still contained racist components to preserve “the national character” by using a National Quota Policy.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is an interesting one and involves Senator Edward M. Kennedy:
Ted Kennedy involvement:
At any rate, we’ve gone on enough to discuss the original question. In short anchor babies are those babies born inside the United States who, like the Chinese babies of the past, become American citizens. Because these children are citizens and entitled to remain in the country, supporters of amnesty claim that deportation of illegals with citizen children is splitting families and depriving these citizen children of their rights as Americans guaranteed by the Constitution. Opponents argue that because the children were born during the commission of a crime, (illegal entry and stay) that none of these children are entitled to citizenship, and so, there is no actual splitting of families or deprivation of citizen civil rights; just a restoration of the status quo.
In defense of those demanding deportation, some cite the Chinese babies of the past born during the time of the Chinese Exclusion from naturalization. These babies were citizens by birth, but they could not sponsor or get their parents or other relatives naturalized as citizens under the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Now, when grown, anchor babies born to those who’ve entered illegally can sponsor and bring into the United States, members of their immediate family(ies) when they get older…mother, father, sisters, brothers, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, etc., who face no such bar to naturalization. This makes the estimated 20 million illegals here seem insignificant in comparison to what could be. Without strict definition of immigration and enforcement of immigration laws, any group can come here illegally, wait for amnesty, and then as citizens sponsor others to come here and further skew the population and cultural balance one way or another.
Suppose for a moment that 20 million from the Eastern Bloc European nations recently freed from the oppression of the former United Soviet Socialist Republic illegally entered the country via Canada and hid out, taking jobs, tying up Emergency Rooms, overflowing schools and towns with small budgets now forced to pay a share of expensive benefits. Do you suppose the Congress would be as supportive of them as they are of our friends from South America?
The truth is that America has a long history of racism. It comes to the fore in a most violent and ugly way whenever the economy becomes tough and jobs become scarce. Until then, most people voice periodic complaints but really do not insist on action by the government. But, when the economy and jobs tank and citizens begin losing jobs, not because they have been lost in competition, but because they have lost in their willingness to work for cut rates in pay and benefits – historically, this country becomes as racist as any other. Please, don’t misinterpret me. All countries are racist and protective of their culture. As bad as some perceive America’s racial past to have been, America has been the least racist over it’s relatively brief existence as compared to those of other continents and nations and as a result, the quickest to accept inclusion and a gradual melding of all peoples and cultures so long as they showed respect for America and her history of liberty and achievement.
Most nations speak through their governments. Ours is no exception, for the most part. But, when the majority of people or principle and good character feel our government is not representing us as we wish, we have the unique ability to force the government to change its tone, tenor and position by reminding individual members that they work for us and not the other way around. Once this aspect of American life is lost, we will no longer remain a nation of laws, but will transform into a nation of violence, chaos and rebellion; not because we want to, but because, for American’s that’s just the way it is.
With all of this in mind, I think anyone who is asked to define what an anchor baby is and how they differ from the babies of immigrants past can now do so from an informed position as opposed to one of irrational emotion. As the discussion continues and a decision on who to vote for during future elections arise, this information can guide you in casting your vote or in questioning your candidates.
Tony said:
You should add a table showing how other countries handle this issue.
--Rick said:
I could have added a lot more. My intent was to give some background to demonstrate that the issue is complex, and it has always had some exclusionary rules attached since the first laws were written. Some of those exclusionary rules were repugnantly and overtly racist and needed to be changed. However, a need for change is not an excuse for disregarding the rule of law. Forcing laws to become more just and equitable is the role of the courts. Until the courts make the changes needed (generally as a result of pressure by the population), it is the duty of public safety officials to enforce the existing laws and to adjudicate accordingly.
If you would like to see how Mexico handles it’s southern border, click here. Michelle Malkin isn’t a definitive voice on immigration, but this blog is a start. I’m certain that with very little effort, you could easily find the information you need to decide on how to settle the matter while adhering to the rule of law.
Immigration said:
It’s time to put an end this Anchor Babies.They have abused and misused it. I don’t have nothing against how this anchor babies begin because other countries handled it well. But how about America. They are using these babies to get their citizenship, Napolitano should be sued for aiding these illegal aliens and for trashing the US Constitution. Wake Up American. Send these babies back to where they belong.
--Rick said:
I think your statement is way over the top, but because you are linked to an immigration assistance page, I suspect that the statements made are little more than a rouse in an effort to get your link posted. Either way, because I am open to all sides of a debate, you could have been more straightforward and accomplished the same end goal.
As to anchor babies, I’m certain that there are many reasons for people coming here and having children. It’s been estimated that 1 out of every 12 lived births are children born to illegal aliens. The question of their citizenship is still up in the air, and ultimately, in my vie3w, will be challanged in court under the first line of section 1 of the 14th amendment:
“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.”
The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – this means that such babies must register for social security, for the draft, and other actions that assert their allegiance to the nation and their willingness to subjugate themselves to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We have children who are in their late teens who have spent most, if not all of their lives here, who hardly speak the tongue of their parents homeland, who have established friends and roots here and who, if sent back to the homeland of their parents would have a very difficult time surviving. In the end, in my view, cases of deportation or amnesty will have to be judged individually to assure fairness and the best outcome for the nation and for each individual now deemed a citizen under the 14th amendment.
Try as they have, both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have yet to kill the rule of law as an overriding factor in American life. So long as the rule of law survives, each citizen or person brought before the court has a relatively good chance of getting justice on the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the impartial ruling of either a judge or a jury on the merits or lack thereof of their individual case. Hence, the need to assure that no group are tossed into, processed and disposed of as if they were little more than a block of cheese. To act in this latter manner would do nothing but point out how little the rule of law truly means to America and American liberty.
Immigration said:
I understand your point of view Rick but Immigration before way back 1795 and Immigration today aren’t the same. Before America welcome those immigrants from Western Europe to help them start their life after they managed to escape from barbarism and find refuges in the US. Today many pregnant women purposely come to america, why? to have a US Citizen child, knowing that once they do, it allows them to be able to get government benefits not only for the US citizen child but for themselves.
Now, I ask you Rick, Let’s say, you travel for a business trip to any part of Europe and bring your wife with you but you are expecting a baby. Do you think Germany, France or Italy would allow you stay because you have a Euro baby? Of course not because you don’t have a Jackpot baby(anchor baby). In EU countries they don’t allow an automatic citizenship.
I believe, this is the root why many americans would want to stop the Jackpot babies because many americans wants to protect themselves against being flooded by illegal immigrants. By closing the back door to the illegal immigrants and accomodating the legal immigrants in the interest of the country. As I’ve said, I don’t have nothing against these anchor babies but I believe America can no longer afford to be the dumping ground(Sorry for the word). What america needs now are the skilled and educated immigrants who can help the nation.
I remember this news and wanted to share it with you. http://cofcc.org/2010/05/cbs-national-news-runs-pitty-party-for-illegal-alien-welfare-queen-with-10-kids/
My question is do you want to have these ten anchor babies to feed?
--Rick said:
As I stated, the U.S. Constitution contains the solution within the 14th Amendment by requiring that these newborn citizens also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As long as their parents are here illegally, then, by definition their children are not subject to United States jurisdiction; they are subjects of the nation of their parent’s origin until they are able to live on their own.
Once these “anchor babies” reach the age of majority, they can assume citizenship, but only by subordinating themselves to the United States Constitution and American law. They do so by registering for selective service, registering to vote, paying taxes to the United States and not to some other country and much, much more. As a minor child, these persons cannot do any of these things and they can’t swear or demonstrate fealty to anyone or any nation beyond that of their parents who reside here illegally. Therefore, should the parents be sent home via deportation; they children must be sent with them regardless of where they are born.
As to Europe, you are correct in that should my wife deliver a baby within the borders of a foreign nation that they would not be offered citizenship. This is, however, one of the reasons why America is unique in the world. Legal immigrants are accepted here and their children are accepted as citizens. However, even a legal immigrant who breaks U.S. law can be deported. With the deportation of the law breaking parents generally comes the involuntary expulsion of the natural born minor children. But, in the end, these children when at the age of majority retain the right to return as U.S. Citizens and are not subject to a lifetime punishment for the sins of their fathers.
Most people who come here illegally, specifically from South America, do so to find jobs, to escape violence, and to provide their children with greater opportunities than are available to them at home. Mexico has always been corrupt. However, it has never been as corrupt or as violent as it is now; especially, along the United States border. This new violence is often blamed on cartel on cartel battles, but the truth of the matter is that most of the violence is caused by corrupt elements of the Mexican army and corrupt law enforcement agencies ranging from local to federal.
These elements exploit their own citizens and are often involved in kidnappings, rapes, torture and ultimately, murder as part of their drug enterprise activities. The United States government and the money it spends on its so called war on drugs fuels this corruption and protects those involved from prosecution. It pays to intimidate and silence the press and witnesses by act of violence against press members and their families; including the murder of their children.
All the while this “war on drugs” has been waged, have you noticed an reduction in the amount of drugs entering the country? Have you noticed any increase in cost because of any sort of shortage of drugs? I think, from what I’ve read, that the cost of drugs has actually dropped because the flow across our borders has become so much easier and less costly. The rationale for continuing the “war on drugs” is made possible and kept viable by the occasional bust that is large enough to make T.V. and the press, but so infrequent as to make little to no difference in the overall trade.
The only thing that has changed in the war on drugs as the drug trade has moved up from Columbia to Mexico is the victim pool. Most of the victims are impoverished Mexican citizens who are forced into the drug trade by being offered great sums of money and escort across the border. Just a few years ago, these people would have to pay coyotes to transport them and were often abandoned and left to die in the desert after having paid for their passage.
NAFTA brought American factories to Mexico, called maquiladoras, where workers get the privilege of working long hours for poverty level wages forcing them into slums without running water, electricity or other things we take for granted here in the United States. Corruption is everywhere. Death is everywhere. Kidnapping, rape, extortion, and torture is everywhere; but more devastatingly, drugs and the drug culture is everywhere and its potential for high earnings lures the best, the brightest and the youngest onto its road of evil because there are no other opportunities left; no legitimate avenues of work that pay well enough and offer enough security to compete with lawlessness and the corruption that has overwhelmed border towns such as Ciudad, Juarez.
The people of the United States, although less culpable than most involved in this cesspool of horror that has engulfed Mexico, need to do some soul searching. We are participants of a treaty that allows for the exploitation of labor, the destruction of local communities, and a new source of corruption to add to an already over abundant array of evil inside Mexico. We spend a half billion dollars a year on Mexico fueling the power that grows, directs and protects corruption and lawlessness.
Then, on our side of the border, we set up factories that draw people to cross illegally to escape the horrors and lack of opportunity in their homeland which America has indirectly helped to put into motion. These factories hire illegals knowingly to get cheap labor and turn a blind eye to both the law and to the best interests of the nation in order to heighten their own interests.
The source of the problem is not the immigrant or his/her legal status. The source of the problem is poor U.S. policy, corrupt Mexican government at all levels, and the unethical behavior or businessmen on both sides of the border. These are the people who deserve punishment; not the illegals.
If you cut off the source of jobs here in the United States, you cut off the reason for most illegals to remain here. If you punish the businesses that hire illegals; you assure that the destination for illegals will remain shut off. If you punish Mexico by withholding funds, until they lend assurance and demonstrate a willingness to act against those running the maquiladoras, and force them into providing worker’s rights and wages on par with western economies, you remove a source that pushes them out. Finally, if the United States is going to sign treaties such as NAFTA, it must assure that other signatories will act as responsibly and codify worker rights in a fashion similar to our own. Our failure to do so has resulted in American business setting up within NAFTA countries and deliberately exploiting foreign workers to gain an unfair trade advantage.
As to the basic problem of drug trafficking, we have two choices. We can put armed national guardsmen on the border with limited restrictions on the use of force. Or, we can legalize drugs in the United States. One thing we can’t do, or at least have been unsuccessful at doing is to get Americans to stop using drugs – the ideal solution.
By the way, there are 32 countries with anchor baby laws similar to those of the United States. Until recently, Britain and France had liberal laws on citizenship. They pulled back because it became apparent to them that they could not sustain the rising population growth and associated costs driven by large influxes of illegal populations.
As you can see from my long response, this is a very complex issue that requires thought deeper than sound bites and actions that go beyond hiring PR companies and consultants for use by business and politician on both sides of the border. This is a problem than can only be solved by rational policy built up from solid, unwavering core beliefs and enforced vigilantly by the rule of law. It requires ethical leaders who abide by the philosophy of placing individual rights above all other considerations when it comes to adjudicating responsibility and punishment that invariably must be faced if this problem is ever to be solved with fairness and impartiality.