When touring the country in 2007, mainly the states which border the Mexican border, journalist Ruben Navarrette Jr. interviewed Latinos about the growing trend against the anti-Immigration sentiment rising in the country. In his article, Hate in the Immigration Debate, Navarrette acknowledges that the anti-immigration mentality has morphed into “’anti-Hispanic’ and specifically ‘Anti-Mexican.’” Recently, the anti-Hispanic and anti-Mexican sentiment has grown and has been accepted when as of June of last year Arizona proposed to give power to its Law Enforcement to question suspected individuals who may be immigrants and detain them if they can’t prove otherwise. Since the proposal is still held up in courts, if you’re Latino you are safe. But if accepted, and if you are Latino and live or are visiting Arizona you may be questioned and arrested if you do not carry an id.
With the start of the New Year, a new target has to be picked: Babies. When the term Anchor comes to me you tend to think of that contraption attached to the side of a ship that is used to tether it to a fixed location. However, these days the very mention of the word Anchor is usually followed by Baby since the recent immigration battle is now addressing the existence of Anchor Babies and the legal policy that protects them.
Generally viewed as a derogatory term, Anchor Baby is used to label a child born within the United States to immigrant parents or parent. Since these newborns fall under the globally accepted policy, a policy that has also been adapted into the US Constitution, known as Jus Soli (Latin for right of the soil; also known as birthright citizenship) they automatically become American citizens. It is this instant acceptance and the possibility that children of immigrant parents can eventually sponsor other family members to become US citizens themselves has attracted the attention of opponents against immigration into the US.
Demanding an end to the policy found in the US Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 1 which goes as follows: “All persons born…in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” declares the safety and protection of any newborn to be considered an American despite the citizenship status of their parents. Yet, opponents are identifying pregnant women crossing the Mexican border into Arizona as potential harbingers of allowing the US to become overfilled with criminals.
Mentioned early, Arizona proposed a Senate Bill entitled SB 1070 that would allow it’s local law enforcement to question any individual (Latino) they suspect is an immigrant. Since the controversial bill drew protest for its attack on civil rights, the bill is currently still being debated in court where it will eventually be decided if it should become an law or not. However, to fill there time Arizona lawmakers planned to join with other legislators from different states to address the issue of Jus Soli before the Supreme Court on January 5th.
The planned coalition failed to act though since those involved in drafting the legislation against the policy did not want to go forward in the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Although changing the amendment would be troublesome, the coalition has decided to target federal government which decides who becomes an American citizen. Through the federal government, the coalition proposes a creation of two kinds of birth certificates in the members’ states, one for children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.
Commenting on the possible backlash the proposed creation of dual birth certificates may create, John Kavanagh, an Arizona legislator for this proposed creation believes it is not, “a far-out, extremist position. Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of birth.” Kris Kobach, the new secretary of Kansas State, law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and a figure in drafting many tough immigration regulations across the US, argues that this creation will withstand public scrutiny because he is, “confident the law will stand up in court.”
Scholars of the Constitution find the proposed plan unconstitutional. Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona, believes the plan is simply a “political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test,” and the creation of such certificates is simply, “unwise, un-American and unconstitutional.”
Five years ago, Laura Gomez, a 24-year-old pregnant woman, crossed into the United States from Mexico while pregnant and puts this proposed action into the simplest of words when she says, “It doesn’t seem fair to just change the rules like that.” Although these expected mothers, parents, enter the country illegally all they truly want is to provide and give their child the start of a new and better life. Despite being referred to as anchor babies, these innocent children can not protect their parents from deportation until they are of legal age which is 21 when they can actually file paperwork to sponsor their parents. Gomez is an illegal immigrant and pregnant with her second child, if the plan is passed her second child may be identified as immigration unlike its older sibling.
