Rhetoric on Immigration Is Shameful : Eliminating automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. would accomplish nothing but the creation of a new legal underclass in America.

As the November election draws close, illegal immigration has emerged the No. 1 issue in the polls. In tune with what appears to be public sentiment, Democratic Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (Woodland Hills) and his Republican challenger in the 24th Congressional District, Richard Sybert, have tried to outdo each other in attacking illegal immigration.

Their positions may be “good politics,” but they have deprived voters of a chance to debate the merits of various anti-immigration proposals.

One of the most extreme positions that both candidates have adopted is support for repealing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen.

They argue that repeal would eventually reduce governmental costs by eliminating some legal benefits that state and local governments are required to provide to its citizens. More significantly, they say, it would remove the presumed incentive for pregnant women to come here illegally to give birth and make their babies eligible for government benefits.

In fact, eliminating automatic citizenship would dissuade few people from coming here illegally. Benefits are a motivation only for a small proportion of illegal aliens. The prime motivation is jobs. Having a child who is a citizen does not qualify the mother or father for benefits, and the child must be over 21 before he or she can help the parents gain legal status. The mighty lure of relatively high-paying jobs and a better life would remain.

The public funds actually saved would be insignificant. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe that all children in the United States, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to primary education. Under long-established government policy, aliens even illegally in the United States are entitled to emergency medical assistance. There are far more effective methods for reducing governments’ fiscal burdens. For instance, Washington could reimburse border states for these expenses and reform the welfare system.

The Citizenship Clause was adopted after the Civil War to ensure citizenship to the former slaves, in effect “forced immigrants,” and to prevent the creation of an underclass living on American soil without the basic rights of citizenship. This was no radical idea at the time. The analogous legal doctrine of jus soli goes back to the feudal times, which obligated those born on the lands of the lord to owe allegiance to that lord and ultimately the king. This ancient rule of citizenship has been adopted in many countries. Both Canada and Mexico have similar provisions in their law.

However, the contrary legal doctrine of jus sanguinis, which grants derivative citizenship through parentage, is not universally followed. Each country decides when to extend citizenship to children born abroad. U.S. law is typically complex, with a child’s right to citizenship based on his or her birth date and the parents’ citizenship, marriage status and place and length of residence.

Deportation of an alien residing illegally from the United States requires a country willing to repatriate the individual. In countries that do not grant automatic citizenzhip at birth, many children are born stateless. It would be naive to think that other countries, such as Mexico, would accept a growing mass of unwanted people born here solely because U.S. immigration officials claim their parents came here illegally. These children would become America’s problem, whether we like it or not.

Amending the citizenship clause would accomplish but one thing: It would create a new legal underclass in America. Like the former slaves, this underclass would probably be made up of people of minority races and the poor. They would not qualify for non-emergency medical care, education beyond secondary levels or jobs. And they would not be deportable to their parents’ country of nationality. They would be illiterate, destitute, sick and homeless and a burden to the communities in which they lived.

History dictates that it is far wiser to enfranchise those on the edge than to exclude them politically and face the consequences of what can happen when people have nothing to lose.

Make no mistake. This is a radical and extreme proposal. It would not reduce illegal immigration. Its only purpose is to help candidates win office by scapegoating a group that cannot vote for problems that require unpopular solutions.

There is no silver bullet that will stop illegal immigration. Mass migration of people is a phenomenon that stretches back to the beginning of our species. It is not a problem that can be “fixed” by some magic cure. It must be managed by an intelligent, coherent and flexible policy. It is a shame that those who want to lead us in Congress have shied away from a serious debate on immigration policy and instead have adopted simplistic rhetoric aimed to please those most likely to vote.