Another False Solution for Immigration

With his call for repealing the 14th Amendment, to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents, Gov. Pete Wilson has become the latest politician to endorse a dubious proposal that will only exacerbate tensions over immigration.

The practice of conferring citizenship on domestic newborns is not unique to the United States. Canada and Mexico do the same, as do many other countries.

There are three approaches to determining the nationality of individuals. Jus sanguinis, “law of the blood,” which bases citizenship on the blood of the parents, governs nationality laws in countries like Germany, Kuwait and Japan. The result is a measure of control over immigration but at the price of establishing a deeply entrenched underclass of foreigners born in those nations--almost literally second-class citizens. Jus soli , “law of the soil,” took root in countries like the United States, Canada and Australia--not coincidentally, all countries colonized by immigrants of different nationalities who wanted citizenship for their children in the new nation. In many other countries, Mexico among them, the guiding principle is a combination of both soli and sanguinis . People born in the country are automatically granted citizenship, as are children born abroad to citizens of that particular country. Repealing the 14th Amendment would, in effect, create a U.S. version of jus sanguinis.

Wilson claims the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War “to validate the citizenship of former slaves and their children--not to reward illegal immigration.” Not exactly. Even earlier, U.S. jurisprudence established the principle of citizenship as the birthright of the individual. Courts, in effect, rejected the social stratification implied in the lineage status that is an essential characteristic of jus sanguinis . Incidentally, refusing citizenship to children born in the United States would be an onerous process indeed, requiring a constitutional amendment that would take a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the approval of 38 state legislatures.

Proponents of repeal of the 14th Amendment premise their campaign on the assumption that birthright citizenship is an incentive for massive immigration to the United States. That’s doubtful. Indeed, most studies show that the primary motive is economic. As long as there is a fundamental disparity between the United States and countries with historically poor job markets, repealing the 14th Amendment will have little or no effect on immigration.

Wilson’s controversial proposal should be rejected. Californians who are sincerely concerned about immigration problems should focus instead on solutions that will work, like better enforcement of existing laws and economic development in Mexico.