Attacks on 'anchor babies' are impractical and unworthy of the immigration debate.
Ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War, the Constitution's 14th Amendment is abundantly clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Thirty years later, the amendment was challenged after Congress passed a law to exclude Chinese immigrants. The Supreme Court held that the amendment confers automatic citizenship on anyone born in the USA. Through multiple waves of immigration since then, it has faced no serious challenge.
Until now.
This week, as part of his unworkable and mean-spirited immigration plan, Donald Trump called for denying citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. At least a half-dozen other Republicans vying for the party's presidential nomination have scurried to join him in seeking to either undo or “reinterpret” the 14th Amendment.
In the modern era of porous borders, international tourism and jetliner travel, ending so-called birthright citizenship carries a certain visceral appeal. But the practical and legal obstacles make it at best a distraction from the nation's more serious immigration problems, and at worst an ugly form of anti-Hispanic discrimination.
To undo birthright citizenship would require the monumental task of amending the Constitution or passing a new law and battling constitutional challenges. Either approach would take many years; even if it succeeded, the nation would end up with a flawed system requiring federal involvement in what is now a local issue, the granting of birth certificates.
If history is any guide, many states would balk. In 2005, Congress passed a law to create a national identification system by placing new federal standards on driver’s licenses. A decade later, fewer than half the states have fully complied. If the same happened with birth certificates, citizenship would depend on where a baby was born.
Most politicians pushing the repeal of birthright citizenship have given short shrift to these sorts of real-life complications. Would women in labor need to bring birth certificates or passports to the hospital to prove that they or the baby's father is legal? Would bureaucrats need to check the IDs to determine authenticity before any birth certificates were issued?
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, sponsor of a measure to repeal birthright citizenship, says he doesn't "think that would be a big deal." We wonder whether the parents of the 4 million babies born in the USA each year would agree that undergoing a citizenship test is worth the hassle in order to identify the estimated 7.7% who are born to unauthorized immigrants, according to the Pew Research Center.
And to what end?
The scheme would not put much of a dent in the country’s immigration problems. It would surely cause some women to stay away from hospitals, endangering the health of mother and child. Far better if the effort and federal dollars were put toward more efficient ways to fight illegal immigration: tighter borders, better employment verification and dealing with visitors who overstay their visas.
If babies born to undocumented immigrants were suddenly denied citizenship, it would create an automatic underclass of stateless children, unable to attend school or feel allegiance to the country in which they live.
Through past waves of anti-immigrant fervor against the Chinese, Irish, Italians and others, such ideas have never won out. America has thrived by assimilating people from all over the world, people proud to have been "born in the USA." There is no good reason to change a winning formula now.
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
Retain birthright citizenship: Our view
