[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7354-H7358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE CITIZENS REFORM ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Thune]. Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] 
is recognized for one-half of the time until midnight as the designee 
of the majority leader.
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, in support of H.R. 7, 
the Citizens Reform Act of 1997.

[[Page H7355]]

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the United States is one of the few 
major industrialized countries in the world that still grants automatic 
citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Only three other 
countries do so--Mexico, Argentina, and Canada, and Canada is in the 
process of changing its law.
  Some argue, though I disagree, that birthright citizenship is 
anchored in the first section of the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution, which states that ``all persons born * * * in the United 
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
United States * * *.''
  The 14th amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to those 
formerly held in bondage and their descendants after the Civil War.
  The Supreme Court did not consider application of the citizenship 
clause of the 14th amendment to children born in the United States to 
legally-residential aliens until 30 years after the amendment was 
ratified. The court ruled that children born in the United States to 
parents who were lawfully admitted for permanent residence should 
receive automatic citizenship.
  But while the Supreme Court has consistently held that the 
citizenship clause of the 14th amendment applies to children born to 
legal immigrants, it has never held that this principle extends to 
children born here to illegal alien parents.
  Because of the adverse effects of our present policy, it should be 
changed.
  Those effects include smugglers bringing pregnant women into this 
country to give birth only because their children will become citizens. 
Approximately 16 percent of all the births taking place in California 
each year are to illegal alien mothers.
  The county of Los Angeles estimates that almost 200,000 U.S. citizen 
children of illegal alien parents living in Los Angeles are collecting 
$461 million per year in AFDC benefits.
  And an estimated 10 percent of total education costs to school 
districts in Los Angeles County are attributable to primary and 
secondary education for citizen children of illegal aliens.
  Apart from the costs, isn't citizenship being devalued when it is 
given away as a result of illegal behavior?
  I support H.R. 7, legislation introduced by Representative Brian 
Bilbray of California, because it would do a great deal to discourage 
illegal aliens from entering the United States. And it would make U.S. 
policy consistent with the vast majority of countries around the world.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had the privilege of 
being American citizens and being raised here in the United States know 
that the United States has always prided itself as being a Nation of 
laws, of citizens that respect their laws and serve the Nation, rather 
than a Nation that serves men and ideas of individuals over the 
concepts of good laws.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7, the Citizens Reform Act of 1997, is a 
legislative correction by Congress for an issue that has been ignored 
for much too long. The issue really before us is the issue of who 
qualifies for automatic citizenship in the United States by right of 
birth.
  Now, many of us assume that if we are born on U.S. territory, no 
matter what the situation, we get automatic citizenship. The fact is, 
here in Washington and in New York the diplomats and their children do 
not get automatic citizenship in the United States, because the 
Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that not all persons born in the 
United States are given citizenship, only those who are born or 
naturalized and who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
  Now, that conditioning clause has been interpreted in many different 
ways over the hundred years and plus that it has been in effect. The 
definition of ``subject to the jurisdiction'' has clearly stated that 
the children of diplomats do not get automatic citizenship, and that is 
not a punitive action. That is a calculated interpretation of the fact 
that diplomats do not owe allegiance, loyalty to the United States 
Government, and that their children do not receive the rights of 
automatic citizenship because the parents do not bear the obligation of 
loyalty.
  Now we may ask, what does this have to do with 1997? Well, Mr. 
Speaker, across this country there are individuals who are entering 
this country illegally, who are violating the law, who are violating 
the trust of the American people, and then are demanding or acquiring 
automatic citizenship without due process for their children.
  Now I, for one, am very sensitive to this. I was raised by an 
immigrant of a foreign country who came here legally, who played by the 
rules. I think it is just an assault on our entire concept of fair play 
to say that there are those who are waiting patiently to immigrate 
legally, whose children are born in foreign countries, who do not 
acquire automatic citizenship but who are required to go through the 
process and naturalize.
  At the same time, there are those who enter this country illegally or 
enter this country, as most illegals do, and I want to point this out, 
legally, and then violate their agreement with the Federal Government 
by overstaying their visas. Then their children who are delivered here 
in the United States gain the right of automatic citizenship, while 
those who are playing by the rules, their children, as I stated before, 
do not.
  H.R. 7 points out that we need to address this issue of fairness, we 
need to make sure that we send a very clear message to everyone. And I 
want to point out quite clearly, it is not the immigrants' fault; it is 
Congress' fault. The Fourteenth Amendment says that Congress will have 
the responsibility to statutorily enforce these sections. Congress has 
ignored this problem because they did not think the problem was very 
big, did not think it was worth addressing.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say quite clearly, even if it was one person 
benefiting from the violation of our national laws, that would be 
enough. But in California alone in 1993 we had 96,000 children born to 
illegal aliens who qualified for automatic citizenship. That is 40 
percent of the Medicaid births in the State of California, the largest 
State in this Union. That population in itself sends a very clear 
message that we are sending the wrong message to the rest of the world.
  Now I did not do a poll, and a lot of people in Washington did not do 
a poll, but I just received information from California that a group 
did a poll asking women who are illegally in the country, why did they 
come to the United States. Frankly, even those of us who are involved 
in illegal immigration were shocked to see that a quarter of them 
stated that one of the major reasons to come here was so that their 
children could gain the privileges and rights of automatic citizenship, 
of citizenship in the greatest Nation in the world.
  Now, I do not fault them for doing that. But I do fault a Congress 
that stands by and ignores the fact that we are telling people who want 
to come to this country, ``Come here illegally and we will reward you. 
Wait patiently to come here legally, and we will make you toe the 
line.''

                              {time}  2245

  I think that is a very wrong statement to send. I think it is one 
that we need to correct.
  H.R. 7, Mr. Speaker, corrects it. It says if you are a citizen of the 
United States, a resident alien in the United States that has been 
accepted as a resident by the United States, then you bear the 
responsibility of loyalty and service to the American people, and we 
will give your child automatic citizenship. With the obligation goes 
the rights. But if you are a tourist who is just asking to pass 
through, or if you are an illegal alien who has violated our laws, we 
will not reward you or your child for you breaking the law while we 
require those who wait patiently to immigrate to play by the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, this item goes back many years. First of all, many may 
say, again, I thought everyone on U.S. soil was automatically a 
citizen. In fact, it was not the 14th amendment that allowed native 
Americans to become automatic citizens of the United States. In fact, 
many, many individuals in this country who come from native American 
backgrounds did not get their right of being automatic citizens from 
the 14th amendment, because the Supreme Court ruled in a case back in 
the 1880s that Indians, native-born Americans, did not qualify as being 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof as conditioned by the 14th 
amendment. The fact is the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans 
could not be tried for treason and could not be drafted and could not 
be held liable, though they could be arrested, but they could not be 
held liable for not being loyal to the U.S. Government, and thus their 
children did not qualify.

[[Page H7356]]

  The first case of that, that reflected that, was the Elk versus 
Wilkins, which was a situation where an Indian who had left his tribe 
went to qualify as a voter and tried to register as a voter. The 
registrar of voters refused to register him because they said, you are 
not a citizen. John Elk, an Indian born within the territory of the 
United States, in Nebraska, went to the Supreme Court and said, I was 
born within the United States; the 14th amendment gives me automatic 
citizenship. The court ruled that the Indian born of a member of the 
tribe within the United States was still not subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, and that Mr. Elk was not a U.S. citizen by right 
of the 14th amendment.
  Let me remind my colleagues that this is the same 14th amendment that 
a lot of people say illegal aliens should get automatic citizenship 
for, that a legal Native American within the United States has been 
ruled not to be a U.S. citizen. But this House and this Congress and 
this Federal Government has continued to assume that illegal aliens 
qualify under that category.
  I think that any reasonable person would say there should be some 
major questions raised here. I think the question illustrates quite 
clearly that not all individuals born within the territory of the 
United States automatically get citizenship under the 14th amendment, 
because there is that conditioning clause ``subject to the 
jurisdiction.''
  The next case that is always brought up on this issue, Mr. Speaker, 
is a case that people that want to give automatic citizenship to 
illegal aliens point out, and that is U.S. versus Wong Kim Ark. Wong 
Kim Ark was an individual who was the son of two Chinese immigrants, 
legal resident aliens, who were allowed to set up business within the 
United States, and the child was born while they were here legally in 
the United States. When Mr. Wong Kim tried to come back from a visit 
after his parents had been extradited through the Chinese Exclusion 
Act, he went to visit them in China, tried to come back into the United 
States, and he was told he could not because he was not a citizen.
  The Supreme Court ruled quite clearly on that and made a reference to 
a case, which was our British common law case, that the parents had 
been legal under a case called the Calvin case, and that the Supreme 
Court ruled that because they were residents of the United States and 
had been permitted under British common law and United States 
immigration law to be in the United States, that the child had the 
rights, because while the parents were in the United States, they had a 
temporary allegiance through legal immigration.
  This may really sound like a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but it 
comes back to the point of fairness, and it comes back to a point that 
I think those of us in Washington forget too often. The whole case that 
we are talking about citizenship and automatic citizenship comes back 
to a basic rule that there are rights and responsibilities, and that 
people or individuals cannot claim rights without bearing equal 
responsibilities.
  Actually in the Calvin case, which was a case where a Scotsman was 
basically told by one group that he was not a citizen and could not 
qualify in the English courts, that he had no rights there, that Calvin 
was able to prove that he had rights because he had obligations; that 
his parents could have been tried for treason, could have been drafted 
for service to the king; that his parents in a most gross sense could 
have been drawn and quartered as traitors because they had an 
obligation to be loyal to their government, and because of that 
obligation, there became a right to the child.
  The same argument has to be reflected, that there are those in our 
society who think that rights come without responsibilities. I think we 
may debate back and forth when and where those begin, but I think it is 
quite clear here with this case that the law that we base our 
immigration birthright citizenship is based on a British law that was 
articulated in the Calvin case which said if the parents are obligated 
to be loyal and to serve the government, with that obligation comes the 
rights of the child to be a citizen. The British said it in their very 
poetic way. It says quite clearly that it is not the ground that really 
matters, it is the state of mind. The terminology that was used in the 
Calvin case was that it is not the soil or the climate, but the loyalty 
and the obedience that makes the subject born.
  I think anyone here would agree that it would be absolutely absurd to 
think that an illegal alien owes loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. 
Government. If we can come to that conclusion, that a person who has 
violated our immigration laws, that has come into this country 
illegally or stayed in this country illegally obviously does not have 
either the concept of loyalty to the United States or the obligation 
being enforced of that loyalty.
  In fact, I would remind a lot of my colleagues who think that the 
concept of not giving illegal aliens automatic citizenship is such an 
outrageous concept, I would ask those colleagues to remember how long 
would you stand by in this House if an illegal alien was tried for 
treason, if an illegal alien was being drafted to serve in the U.S. 
Army, and that illegal alien said, ``Look, I want out of it, I don't 
want to have to serve, I would rather go back to my country.'' The 
concept of trying an illegal alien for treason is as absurd today as it 
would be in the 1860s when the 14th amendment was passed. That same 
absurdity applies to the fact that you give automatic citizenship to 
somebody without the related obligation to them or their parents.

  Mr. Speaker, it may seem like an academic debate. I think that we 
have pointed out again and again as we talk about illegal immigration 
that this city, Washington, DC, and this Federal Government has an 
obligation, an obligation to start clarifying what behavior is 
appropriate, and what behavior will be rewarded, and what behavior is 
inappropriate, and what behavior will not be rewarded. That may seem 
radical and extreme to somebody. In my family, I try to make sure that 
we send that message to our children and to our friends, and it is 
about time Washington understands that common sense may seem extreme 
here, but America wants to see more of it coming out of this place.
  It is not the obligation of illegal immigrants to make rhyme and 
reason out of our immigration laws. It is not the mothers of illegals 
who are responsible to make sure that our citizenship laws reflect 
common sense and reflect the historical precedents that have been set 
over the decades, over the centuries, that to have the rights you must 
bear the responsibilities.
  When we talk about who bears the responsibility here, it is not the 
mother who wants to cross a border or come in from Europe or Asia 
illegally to get automatic citizenship. The responsibility bears right 
here in Washington, DC. Washington, DC, has to bear that 
responsibility.
  I still remember an illegal woman telling me one time, an illegal 
alien woman saying, ``Mr. Bilbray, if you really didn't want us to do 
it, you wouldn't be rewarding us for doing it.'' I think that it is 
time that we send that clear message, and we send it quite fairly and 
quite strongly, that we do not blame them, we blame ourselves, for the 
lack of commitment and involvement in this issue; that we have sent the 
wrong message for too long, and that we are going to address it.
  The 14th amendment, Mr. Speaker, does not say that all persons born 
or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. 
The 14th amendment says that you have to be born in the United States 
and must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To be subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, you do not only have to be subject to being 
arrested and prosecuted, as so many people assume in this country, but 
to be subject to the jurisdiction as defined in British common law and 
as inherited by us through our own Constitution, because even in the 
Wong Kim Ark case, it was quite clear the Supreme Court ruled there is 
no common law in America except the British common law; that the 
British common law said that to be subjects, you must be not only 
obedient, but you must be loyal; that the obligation of obedience is 
only one-half of the responsibility of being subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, and that loyalty is the other half.
  The 14th amendment specifically was trying to address, after the 
Civil War, the issue of the Dred Scott case, to ensure that everyone 
was given equal protection for the right of citizenship

[[Page H7357]]

regardless of race. One of the biggest problems we had was that there 
was an assumption that only white Europeans had the rights under the 
British common law. So to clarify that it was universal, the 14th 
amendment was passed to specifically say that everyone, regardless of 
their race or their past servitude or any other condition, had the same 
rights.
  But the 14th amendment did not change the conditions for birthright 
citizenship in a general sense. The Supreme Court ruled over three 
times that the 14th amendment was to reinforce the concepts that had 
been accepted by the United States, and by the Colonies before the 
United States, and by the English empire before that, that being that 
those who are going to gain automatic citizenship have to be the 
children of people who are subject to the jurisdiction, people who are 
obedient to the law, and obligated to serve the Government and to be 
loyal to the Government.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, most people do not know this, but legal resident 
aliens are obligated to serve in the military and are obligated to be 
loyal to the Government while they are here. They have a temporary 
allegiance of loyalty. When the courts reviewed this under the Calvin 
case, they clarified that when a legal resident comes into the United 
States, there is a contract between a legal resident and the 
Government. The act of allowing someone into your country, you are 
saying to them, or your Government is, you may come into this country 
and be a resident, but you must act with the obligations of being a 
citizen, and you can be drafted, you can be taxed, and you are 
obligated to be loyal. When an illegal alien comes into the country or 
when a diplomat comes into the country, there is no contract between 
the Government and the person entering the country. That contract has 
not been made, and the obligation does not exist. The obligation does 
not exist and the rights of automatic citizenship do not exist.

                              {time}  2300

  I know there are those in this city that would love to say there are 
all kinds of rights out there, but no obligations and no 
responsibilities. That is not reflected in the text of the law or the 
historical background of automatic citizenship.
  Now, we can debate the issues of rights and responsibilities, but one 
thing that is made quite clear, when the Senators were debating the 
14th amendment, there was no concept that they were going to pass an 
amendment that would encourage people to break the laws of the United 
States.
  Senator Howard, who was one of the authors of the citizenship clause, 
specifically made reference to the fact that he wanted to treat fairly 
those individuals who had lived in our country and lived by our rules 
and followed our laws. In fact, his statement, referring to the slaves, 
were that they lived by our laws, they have borne the responsibility of 
citizenship, they are here because we choose them to be here, and, in 
fact even, without them having a choice to be here, and they have the 
right and their children and grandchildren have the right of 
citizenship.
  Mr. Speaker, that does not exactly sound like an illegal immigrant to 
me. It sounds like exactly what it was meant to mean, that those who 
played by the rules, that have been loyal and served this country, have 
a right for their children to be automatic citizens. But those who have 
violated our laws, again, should not be rewarded for it.
  I have to say that I live on the Mexican border and I see very 
interesting things happen. I know of individuals who were in Mexico who 
are waiting patiently for their immigration status, and I know they are 
having children in Mexico. When they get here, they will immigrate, 
they will come here legally, they will wait for years and years to be 
able to play by the rules, and their children will then have to apply 
to naturalize, just like everyone else.
  But when I talk to a lady, like this one lady from El Paso, about how 
outraged she was at the concept while she played by the rules, someone 
could cross the border illegally and their children get automatic 
citizenship, and then their children qualify for welfare, and their 
children qualify for Medicare, that is probably the greatest sin, is to 
continue to tell those who have played by the rules, ``Hey, you were 
crazy to play by rules. Break the rules. This is what this country 
rewards.'' I do not think the American people want that to continue.
  Mr. Speaker, if the people that really believe that everyone who was 
born on U.S. soil should get automatic citizenship, if they really 
believe it would be so unjust to enforce the clause that says that you 
have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, if people think that my 
legislation and that H.R. 7 is so outrageous, then let them have the 
guts to finally stand up and say, look, from now on, every child born 
to a diplomat will get automatic citizenship. From now on, any time 
anybody violates U.S. territory, there will be no problem, they will 
get automatic citizenship. But today, tomorrow, and next month, there 
will be children born in the United States to people who we allowed to 
come here legally, who will not get automatic citizenship, and those 
are the children of diplomats and their aides and their support staff. 
Those individuals are not having their rights taken away. We are not 
punishing their children. We are just reflecting not only the 14th 
amendment, but the British common law and the law that we have all 
inherited into this land.
  So the hypocrisy of this issue is there are those who will oppose 
H.R. 7 and then will continue to ignore the fact that we are today 
saying not everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for the fact that this bill has 
to be brought up, but I think that there are those who have not read 
the law, the root law, which was the case where you had an individual 
claiming to be a citizen, and some people saying he was not, and that 
case goes all the way back to 1607. This is not a new case, 1607.
  You had a Scotsman who said I am a British subject, and I am a 
British citizen, and I should have some rights. The courts ruled then 
that the determining factor was did the parents have responsibilities? 
With those responsibilities, they investigated that the parents did 
have them, they were obligated to be loyal, they were obligated to 
serve the Government, they did not have the right to leave the country 
based on the fact that they were aliens and foreigners, that they had 
the obligation of loyalty, and with that obligation the child received 
automatic citizenship.
  It is not a popular thing to talk about, Mr. Speaker, but it is a 
fairness issue now. No one in the United States can say that it is a 
good policy to reward individuals and their families for breaking the 
law, and that it is a good policy to tell people that if you play by 
the rules, you will be disadvantaged, if you follow the law, you will 
be disadvantaged.
  Now, I am not talking about punishing the children or punishing 
immigrants. I am talking about let us stop punishing the people who 
play by the rules. Let us make a law statutorily under section 5 of the 
14th amendment that reflects the intent of the Senators when they 
stated we are here to protect those who have played by the rules, are 
here because we choose for them to be here, and we look forward to 
their ancestors being here henceforth.
  I think that we can talk about Elk versus Wilkins, we can talk about 
the Calvin case, we can talk about many different cases, but I think 
when it really comes down to it, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the 
future. We have got to talk about how many people are being smuggled in 
from all over the world. What is the message being told to people, like 
my cousins in Australia, that say my God, we hear you guys really want 
illegal immigration; my God, you reward people for breaking the laws.
  We have got to send a message that ambassadors are not being 
discriminated against and their children are not being discriminated 
against. There is no impunity meant here. We are just reflecting what 
the law is, and we need to send a quite clear message around the world 
that if you want to come to the United States, then come here legally. 
We will reward you and your children if you play by the rules. We will 
reward your generations to come. But we will not reward you for 
violating our national sovereignty, for breaking our laws, and for 
violating the basic concept that when you go

[[Page H7358]]

into somebody else's neighborhood or somebody's home or into their 
country, you go there as a guest, not as an intruder.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this House, I hope the Committee on the 
Judiciary, will consider H.R. 7, and at least have the guts to raise 
the issue and quit ducking the issue. The 5th article of the 14th 
amendment specifically says Congress will have the responsibility to 
enforce the appropriate statutory sections. This is our responsibility. 
It is not the states of the United States, it is not even the illegal 
aliens' responsibility, it is our responsibility.

  If those of us think that this is too hot an issue to talk about, too 
hot to take care of, then maybe we ought to talk about going somewhere 
else, because the Constitution says this issue falls square in the lap 
of the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you to clarify this, and I ask the Speaker and the 
leadership to allow H.R. 7 to be brought up for a vote and to move 
through committee so this issue can be debated at length. It is one 
that has been ignored for too long, it is one with many misperceptions, 
and it is one that can be really clarified very quickly.
  I am sure there are those that will say if somebody is in the United 
States illegally by their presence, they have obviously showed they are 
not obedient to the Federal Government's laws. If somebody is here in 
the United States illegally, they are not held to the same loyalty 
standards, which is obviously one of the conditions.
  With those two conditioning clauses, the children of illegal aliens 
and the children of tourists who are just passing through fall in the 
same category as native-born Indians did before 1924 when Congress, 
Congress, had the guts to finally give all Indians automatic 
citizenship. The children of illegals, of tourists, fall in the same 
category as children of diplomats, and the Congress, as it had the guts 
to address the issue in 1924, has to have the guts to address the issue 
now in 1997.

                          ____________________