Following on the Rudy Giuliani comment earlier this week that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee, I had a chance to ask another candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, about his view of the issue.
"I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn't necessarily constitute citizenship," he said. "I think that's a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that."
Birthright citizenship is the concept of automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status.
Most legal scholars say the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to almost everyone, with the exception being children of diplomats or children born to enemies in time of war. But new legal scholarship says that's not the case, and Congress could pass a law to change citizenship rules.
That view has taken hold in the House, where H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, has gained 79 co-sponsors. But reception on the campaign trail is mixed.
Here's how the Republican field stands, as far as I am aware. (If anyone knows of any additions and has the supporting documents, send them on it.)
*Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are co-sponsors H.R.1940.
*Mitt Romney was still studying the issue late last month, according to ABC News' Teddy Davis
*When asked earlier this year, Sen. Sam Brownback said he was going to "fudge" on what he called the "anchor baby proposal," saying it was a constitutional question and out of his hands.
*Giuliani also says it's a constitutional guarantee.
*Rather than letting the constitutional questions be an impediment, Rep. Ron Paul has introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. RES. 46, to change the 14th Amendment.
-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (6)
Huckabee and Paul are right as usual.
Posted by Thomas | August 9, 2007 2:04 PM
Thank you for the direct reporting! The electorate is hungry for side-by-side candidate comparisons without obsfucation. Keep articles like this coming.
Posted by localhost | August 9, 2007 2:47 PM
I personally know of a couple from (a country left unnamed) that came on a business visitor visa intentionally while the wife was very close to pregnancy. She had her baby in the united states, and now obviously the child is a US Citizen.
This is definitely unfair. This issue should be relooked and they need to change this law to require at least one of the paernts to be a permanent US resident instead of visitor/ illegal immigrant etc in order for the child to become an US Citizen.
Posted by Justin | August 9, 2007 5:01 PM
Jus Soli is the legal principle meaning citizenship based on the place of one's birth. It is truly an American concept and what makes our nation unique in the world. It is not likely to ever change. Besides all the states and territories of the United States would have to change all their birth certificates to collect the parent's status and that would have to be verified. How often does a pregnant woman in labor and the father carry around proof of citizenship while rushing to the hospital to give birth? It would be cubmersome and probably turn some state vital records into something you'd expect to find in a Third World country.
Posted by Joe | August 10, 2007 12:38 PM
Jus Soli is not "what makes our nation unique in the world." Many countries have practiced it, and we inherited it, like so many other things from the British. But even the British have wisely modified it, thanks to the same kinds of abuses which are going on here. We'd better modify it too, or American citizenship will soon be meaningless. As an American residing in Mexico, I can assure you that Mexicans know about our automatic citizenship jackpot baby welfare program, and many have no qualms about abusing it. Why is that surprising though, as we have allowed it for too long!
Posted by Allan Wall | August 10, 2007 8:16 PM
While it sounds good, on the surface, Huckabee's idea of preventing US citizens from using a foreign passport, for travel, is just one more example of his inability to grasp the whole picture of complex issues. He goes after a small group of immigrant citizens, but fails to realize that there are many native born citizens, who make regular use of a foreign passport, for safety reasons.
Several traveler organizations rate the US passport as the best for visa-free travel, but the second worst for travel safety. That's because in a hostage situation, Israelis are the most likely to be killed, in a show of intention, followed immediately, by US citizens. On the other hand, those who are traveling on a passport from non-controversial countries like Grenada or Panama are more likely to be released, in a show of good faith.
Also, hotels and other travel services in some countries treat those on US passports like second class guests. Paris comes to mind, as their hotels are known for their poor treatment of Americans. But, show a passport from a small country, like Belize and they treat you like a king.
As usual, Huckabee just shoots from the hip and doesn't think the issues through.
Posted by John Gaver | January 2, 2008 12:28 AM