He found work in a produce market in the
Now 30, she lies on an examination table in
at a weekly obstetrics clinic for immigrant women, no status questions
asked. As a doctor slides an ultrasound wand over her bulging belly,
her eyes are transfixed by the monitor. She is carrying twins.
The moment they enter the world, they will be what their parents are not: U.S. citizens.
Such is their birthright, granted by the 14th Amendment to an estimated 340,000 babies born annually to undocumented immigrants.
But in the marathon fight over immigration control,
that 143-year-old constitutional guarantee has become the latest target
and the delivery room the new front. The pejorative “anchor babies”
already is in the lexicon.
“Once a child is born here, the parents make the
argument that they should be allowed to stay as that child’s guardian.
They are using that child as an anchor (to) play on our heartstrings,”
said
Immigrant advocates dismiss his contention as myth,
and point to a recent study that found that undocumented immigrants
generally “come for work and to join family members.” The
nonprofit Immigration Policy Center concluded “they do no come
specifically to give birth” and game the immigration system.
Such assertions have not tempered the efforts of
immigration-control proponents to effectively do away with “birthright
citizenship” for the offspring of illegal immigrants.
On the federal level, two Republican senators,
want to accomplish it by amending the Constitution — allowing automatic
citizenship only if a child has at least one parent who already is a
citizen, a legal permanent resident or an active-duty soldier.
On the state level, Metcalfe, joined by lawmakers
from 40 others states, is promoting a package of model legislation
under the rubric “National Security Begins At Home.” Among those
suggested bills: In lieu of automatic citizenship, states would issue
distinctly marked birth certificates for the newborns of illegal
immigrants, to distinguish them from U.S. citizens.
Pointing out that immigration policy is a federal
prerogative, immigrant advocates say that such proposals are beyond the
scope of state lawmakers’ authority, not to mention unconstitutional.
Metcalfe’s “model (birth certificate) statute claims
not to confer any particular benefit or penalty on the basis of the
different markings,” said
an international advocacy group. But “differentiating citizens on the
basis of their parents’ immigration status would inevitably result in
discriminatory treatment.”
Supporters of birthright citizenship — including the
and the Constitutional Accountability Center — have hit back hard,
issuing white papers on the 14th Amendment’s intent, organizing
pro-immigrant rallies and running radio ads.
According to a 2010 Pew Hispanic Center analysis,
undocumented immigrants comprise slightly more than 4 percent of adults
in the U.S. But because of their youth and high birthrates, they
produce an estimated 8 percent of the approximately 4.3 million babies
born annually.
What is the real anchoring power of “anchor babies?” Advocates contend it is overblown.
U.S.-born children cannot “protect their parents
from deportation,” the Immigration Policy Center’s analysis stated.
“Every year the U.S. deports thousands of parents of U.S. citizens.”
Those children can sponsor their parents for
permanent residency, but not before age 21. In most cases, if the
petition is granted, the parents would still have to leave the U.S. for
at least 10 years — the penalty for having been here illegally in the
first place.
The center’s report concluded: “Undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. to give birth as part of a 31-year plan.”
But birthright citizenship does have its benefits.
In households with typically low incomes, the infants are immediately eligible for
In arguing for his legislative agenda, Metcalfe stresses the economic impact.
The estimated 140,000 illegal immigrants in
a year — much of it to cover uncompensated emergency-room services for
people “who shouldn’t be on our soil in the first place.”
———
In 2006,
He sees about 50 women a week, who pay on a sliding scale that averages
but nothing at all if they can’t afford it. He writes their names in an
old-school notebook. Not all are Latina; he has had patients from
Ludmir doesn’t ask their immigration status. But based on their lack of
“I didn’t bring these people here,” he said. “They are here, in my backyard, and they are coming to my hospital.”
Not every hospital has such a clinic, and fewer hospitals — citing high costs — are providing maternity services at all.
From childhood, Ludmir was imbued with a global,
immigrant-friendly sensibility. He was born in America when his
Romanian parents came here for his father’s medical residency, and
raised in
But, he said, he does not provide hundreds of
thousands of dollars of subsidized care purely from the goodness of his
heart. It is in
provide preventative care against gestational diabetes, high blood
pressure and other complications, he said, than to incur astronomical
unreimbursed costs when a woman in a life-or-death crisis needs an
emergency delivery.
Although illegal immigrants are not entitled to publicly funded health benefits, hospitals cannot turn away any woman in labor.
“I am not a politician,” Ludmir said. “I am not here to argue that the borders should be tighter. That is not my fight.
“But the law is the law, and unless Metcalfe and others change it,” he said, these children “are U.S. citizens.”
One of his patients is 27-year-old
Like
made his way into the U.S.; working in factories and as a landscaper,
he could earn as much per hour here as in a whole day in
In 2003, Navora crossed the Sonora Desert into
On a recent day, Ludmir performed an ultrasound examination for what will be her fourth child, due in June.
Because of low income, the U.S.-born twins are eligible for
“With the girls, if they have any medical issues they can just go to the doctor” and it will be paid, she said. “My boy can’t.”
———
As the cornerstone of American civil rights, the 14th Amendment affirms that “all persons born or naturalized in
Ratified in 1868, it was designed to rectify the
1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that no one of African descent,
including slaves and free persons, could ever become U.S. citizens.
Immigrant advocates say that the amendment’s framers
wanted to make sure that race, ethnicity and parentage could never
again be used by the government to decide who among the those born in
America are worthy of citizenship.
Several
essentially upheld that interpretation, but without directly addressing
the question of whether children of illegal immigrants are covered by
the amendment.
Metcalfe and his supporters contend the phrase,
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is open to reinterpretation.
They say it doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants because they owe their
allegiance to a foreign power, and not America.
At a January news conference led by Metcalfe,
They may be “subject to our territorial laws,” he
said, “but not to the full and complete jurisdiction” of the U.S.
Therefore, he concluded, their children should not be granted
citizenship.
Both sides say the citizenship debate cuts to the very heart of American values.
For Metcalfe, an army veteran, his definition of
patriotism dictates that he restrict eligibility for America’s most
precious gift.
“It’s not just happenstance that (undocumented
immigrants) are here for an illegal job and now they’re having a baby,”
he said. But whatever their motivation, “you still have someone with no
allegiance to this country having a child here, which ultimately …
undermines the foundation of our nation.”
Lofty arguments are not on the mind of
Asked if it matters whether her children have U.S. citizenship, she falls silent for a moment, then shrugs and smiles.
“I really don’t care. I just want healthy babies.”
———
(c) 2011, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer’s World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com/.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
