Local Experts Call Proposed Change to Constitution Grandstanding

admin |

by Wendell A. LaGrand

Americas bitter immigration debate took new form recently adding still more controversy to its political landscape.

A proposal to introduce legislation to change the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment, which basically guarantees United States citizenship to anyone born in this country, is all a part of political posturing designed to garner political support, said John McGinnis, a Stanford Clinton Senior at Northwestern University and Zylpha Kilbride Clinton Research Professor.

The proposal made headlines when South Carolina Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, (R-SC) suggested restructuring the 14th Amendment in such a way that it would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who were born in the United States, sometimes referred to as anchor babies.

Graham told Fox News in a television interview last month he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for all babies born in the United States.

I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here, Graham said. Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake ... We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that childs automatically not a citizen.

But McGinnis said, This is no suggestion that it is actually going to become law. Repealing the amendment is a political sideshow, he added. Its not a serious proposal.

Graham, along with other Republicans fueled the fire by suggesting the 14th Amendment also encourages illegal immigrants to come to America just to have babies.

I have not seen evidence that people come here to have a baby. These children are U.S. citizens. The notion we would tinker with the 14th Amendment and birth rights in order to play into issues about immigration is incredibly corrosive, says Ed Yarga, director of communications and public policy for the Chicago Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The 14th Amendment overruled part of the Dred Scott case.

Dred Scott was a slave who lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin

before he moved back to the slave state of Missouri, where he was returned to slavery. He appealed to the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford with the hope of being granted his freedom. In March of 1857, the Supreme Court denied his appeal declaring that all Blacks, slaves, as well as free were not, and could not ever become citizens of the United States.

Dred Scott was never overruled by the Supreme Court itself, but in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Court stated that at least one part of it had already been overruled in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Although McGinnis said the birth right issue sparked by the Graham controversy has more to do with immigration, Yarga added, When we start tinkering with fundamental rights, those who rely on fundamental rights always feel some effect. If you look over the course of time, it is the case that African Americans and civil rights benefited from protections under the 14th Amendment. If youstart fussing with that--people who benefited from that, would have ultimate concern, he stated.

I dont think this movement is going to succeed, McGinnis said. Its a group of people trying to argue that children born in the United States do not need citizenship. You need the consensus of the country to change the Constitution, he added. There have been thousands of amendments introduced to change the constitution, however very few have succeeded, he said. Only one was repealed and that was prohibition, McGinnis stated.

This is a product of the fact that we are in the midst of a political silly season, Yarga added. I dont think that the notion of repealing the birth right citizenship of the 14th amendment is a good idea, he stated.

Latest Stories

Latest Podcast

STARR Community Services International, Inc.