The problem of "Anchor Babies"

Few issues in America today are as volatile or difficult to resolve as the current crisis of illegal immigrants, and no part of that debate is more sensitive than that of the children of illegal immigrants.

America is unique in the world in that it grants full citizenship to any child born within its borders. Although there is some dispute about the interpretation of the 14th amendment that guarantees those rights, there is no dispute as to how the law has been implemented for more than 100 years. Any child born within the borders of the United States of America is considered a full citizen of America. Illegal immigrants have realized that, if they come to the United states and have a baby, they establish themselves... "anchor" themselves... in America. The parents are illegal so they do not have access to public benefits like welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment, but their children do. This benefit is a major factor driving the flood of immigrants, second only to the tacit invitation extended to them by American employers who want to take advantage of the cheap labor illegals offer. The existence of this problem points out weaknesses in our immigration system that demand strong reform. Unfortunately, reforming the system has become a political football with partisan interests on both sides bickering reform bills to death so that nothing ever gets done. And so the problem continues.

Solving the entire problem is a task fraught with pitfalls, difficulties, and logistical landmines. So, for the scope of this essay, let's deal just with the problem of the children of illegal immigrants. It is clear there is a problem, but the solution is not so clear. From the political right the demanded solution is to strip the children of their citizenship retroactively and deport them all. From the political left the solution is to integrate all of the parents into our society legally. Each solution is anathema to the other side. The problem with the solution of the extreme right is that it is heartless and cruel to strip a child of his/her American citizenship and exile him/her to a foreign country. That sort of punishment is usually reserved for traitors and spies. But the children have done nothing wrong. They have committed no crime. They have done nothing to warrant such harsh treatment. The problem with the solution of the extreme left is that it rewards the parents for their illegal and often duplicitous behavior. They have gamed the system to their advantage and to the disadvantage of those who have immigrated legally. They should not be rewarded for this by being granted citizenship or even legal immigrant status ahead of those who are patiently waiting to immigrate legally.

How is America to resolve this problem? The answer will end up somewhere in the middle of the two extreme views, a compromise solution that will not please those on the left or the right, but has the best potential to actually find a solution. As we try to figure out what this compromise might be, let us examine some theoretical cases to see how such a new law might provide the best possible solution.

Example 1: Pablo is two years old. He was born in South Texas to a Mexican couple who are in America illegally. They came to America specifically to have Pablo thinking that he would become a citizen automatically and that they would reap the benefits of his citizenship. They both work in the fields harvesting crops for a very low wage. They draw welfare and food stamps on the basis of Pablo's citizenship. They hope that if they can stay until Pablo is older that the US will grant them citizenship because they are the parents of an American citizen. Pablo is a classic "anchor baby".

Example 2: Raul is fifteen years old. He was born in San Diego to a Mexican couple, who are in the country illegally. They came to America specifically to have Raul thinking that he would become a citizen automatically and that they would reap the benefits of his citizenship. They both work as day laborers for a low wage. They draw welfare and food stamps on the basis of Raul's citizenship. They hope that the US will grant them citizenship because they are the parents of an American citizen. Raul is also a classic "anchor baby", but he is much older than Pablo.

Example 3: Juan is three years old. His mother immigrated legally to America when Juan was only two months old. Juan was not born in America. His mother has a green card and works as a cleaning lady in Tucson. She is attempting to become a citizen, but because of the new law in Arizona, has found it difficult to maintain her employment. If she cannot work, she will lose her green card.

Example 4: Jiminez is five years old. His mother was brought to America when she was only two months old and has lived her entire life in Los Angeles with her parents. She has always assumed she was an American citizen and was shocked when she found out that she was actually undocumented. Jiminez is an American citizen because he was born here, but his mother is not. She has a good job as a legal assistant. She always got good grades in school and hopes to go to college to become a lawyer. She is, by any measurement and for all practical purposes, an American, except she was not born here.

So what do we do with these four children? The extreme right view is that all four should be immediately deported along with their parents. The extreme left view is that all four should be allowed to stay in America because three are American citizens and the fourth is here legally and so should also be allowed to stay. How should a reformed system deal with these children? Let's examine each case.

In the first case, Pablo is still young enough so that he has not formed any attachment to his surroundings beyond his immediate family. His parents have obviously taken advantage of the loophole in the law. They are citizens of Mexico. It only makes sense that this child and his parents should be sent back to Mexico. The child will not remember his time in America and so will not be traumatized by this change. He will retain his American citizenship so when he is old enough he can return legally. In this case, deportation of the family and the child is the best available solution.

In the second case, Raul has grown up in America and is fully integrated in American society. His friends are in America. His family is in America. He has been educated as an American. Even though his parents broke the law and gamed the system it seems unfair that Raul should pay for their misdeeds. Sending Raul to Mexico would amount to forced exile. So what is to be done? We are torn between wanting to deport the law-breaking parents and wanting to protect the American child. The answer in this case should be left to the family. They should have the choice to stay in America or return immediately to Mexico, Raul in tow. If they opt to stay in America, they should be fined for breaking the law and put on probation for a period of time to assure they will not do anything wrong in the future. They should be granted temporary green cards, good until Raul reaches the age of 18. At that time, the parents would be sent back to Mexico but offered a legal path to citizenship so that they would go to the back of the line and proceed through proper legal channels to immigrate. When their turn came, they could immigrate legally and rejoin Raul. Like Pablo, Raul will retain his American citizenship so if he and his parents decide he should accompany them on their return to Mexico, he can return to America any time he wants. In this case, protecting the child takes precedence over punishing the parents.

In example three, we have a young child of an immigrant who is here legally. She has not broken any laws. She and her child are not citizens so they do not draw welfare or food stamps. Immigrants like her should be rewarded, not punished. Her green card should be extended and she should be allowed to stay. Not only that but Juan should qualify for some sort of government support. If our new system rewards immigrants who obey the law while punishing those who break the law, it will be much more effective in solving the problem.

In example four we have a mother and child who are both victims of circumstance. The mother is not a citizen, even though she has lived her entire life in America, thinking she was an American citizen. Jiminez is not an "anchor baby". No one has gamed the system. The mother's parents immigrated legally, but failed to document their baby. This mistake has put the mother and her child in a tenuous situation. What is to be done? Sending the mother and child back to Mexico would be needlessly cruel and would accomplish nothing. Even though the young child could probably adapt to life in Mexico, his mother would have a very hard time of it. She has no friends, no family, no job, not even a home town in Mexico. Her entire life is in America. And she has done nothing wrong. She has broken no laws or committed any crimes. In this case it seems clear that some sort of system where decisions could be made on a case-by-case basis must be created. By any standards, in front of any judge, compassion would prevail in this case and the mother would be granted the opportunity to become an American citizen. This would be the morally right thing to do.

Multiply the above scenarios by millions and countless orders of complexity and you begin to understand the sheer scale of the problem. Attempting to use simplistic solutions on such problems rarely does anything but make those problems worse. Reform is going to be complex and will not please everyone. But we have no choice. We are going to have to draw lines in the sand and make tough choices.

We must change the laws for the millions who are already here and established in America. Some lines will have to be drawn to stop the abuse of public services and the "anchor baby" phenomenom. One like will likely have to be age. For instance, the new law could grant all parents with children older than eight years old permission to stay as long as they apply for citizenship within 90 days and go through the proper channels. They would be granted green cards in the interim. Those parents with children younger than eight years old will have to return to Mexico with the option of taking their children with them. If they opt to leave their children in America it will have to be with legally documented people or American citizens. This type of solution will anger many people on both sides of the argument, but they have to realize that their choice is to accept a compromise like this or accept no change at all, a continuation of the present disastrous policy.

Finally, the law designating that babies born in America automatically become citizens must be changed. In its current form it only encourages abuse. This will likely mean a protracted legal battle which could end up as a Supreme Court case or even a constitutional amendment. But in the end the problem of vague and outdated wording in the present law must be fixed. The 14th amendment must stand, but the guarantee of citizenship must be revised. How that revision is done is the subject for another essay.

- RAM
5/25/10