[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND THE MEANING OF
SOVEREIGNTY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-690 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Allison Beach, Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims........................................... 2
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 5
WITNESSES
Dr. Stanley A. Renshon, Professor, City University of New York
Graduate Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow, The Hudson Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor, Chapman University School of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 57
Prepared Statement............................................. 59
Mr. Peter Spiro, Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Dean
and Virginia Rusk Professor of International Law, University of
Georgia School of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 72
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 93
Resolution No. 165 of the American Legion, submitted by Dr. John
Fonte.......................................................... 95
Letter to Chairman Hostettler and National Review Article,
submitted by Dr. John Eastman.................................. 96
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jim Ryun, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas.............................. 103
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Nathan Deal, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Georgia.......................... 103
Article submitted by William Buchanan............................ 105
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND THE MEANING OF
SOVEREIGNTY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good
afternoon.
United States citizenship is a considerable privilege.
Citizens may vote, carry a U.S. passport and are entitled to a
full range of rights under the Constitution. The purpose of
this hearing is to examine both birthright citizenship and dual
citizenship and the effect that they have on our sovereignty as
a Nation.
Currently, the United States grants citizenship to nearly
every individual born on U.S. soil. This policy--based on an
interpretation of the 14th amendment is sometimes referred to
as ``birthright citizenship.''
The 14th amendment states that, ``All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside.'' It does not, however, provide
citizenship in a blanket fashion to literally every person born
on U.S. soil. Rather, it confers citizenship only to those
persons ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States.
Courts have long recognized that children born to
ambassadors and foreign diplomats do not fall under the
jurisdiction of the United States. This raises important
questions about whether the authors of the 14th amendment
intended for individuals born in the U.S. to be granted
citizenship even when the parents have little or no connection
to the United States.
This question is critically important in light of the Yaser
Hamdi case. Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan fighting for
the Taliban, was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents who were in
the U.S. on temporary visas. He returned to Saudi Arabia as a
small child and maintained little connection to the United
States.
Yet, because he was born on U.S. soil and considered a U.S.
citizen, he is granted rights and benefits that a noncitizen
combatant would not have been granted.
Birthright citizenship is also a major issue in the context
of illegal immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies
estimates that 383,000 children are born each year to illegal
alien mothers, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all births
in the United States. Many aliens come to the United States
illegally to give birth, knowing that their citizen children
will be eligible for a large array of benefits, and will some
day be able to petition on their behalf for them to become
legal permanent residents.
It is not clear that the authors of the 14th amendment
intended to confer citizenship to the children of persons who
have no clear allegiance or connection to the United States.
In recent years there has been a trend toward obtaining
multiple nationalities or citizenship. Because citizenship is
largely based on notions of allegiance, it is important to
closely examine the consequences of this growing trend, in
particular, when a person is naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he
or she takes an oath which says in part, ``I hereby declare on
oath that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen.''
Despite the serious nature and explicit terms of the oath,
many individuals keep their previous nationality by retaining
and using their foreign passport, voting in foreign elections,
running for office in a foreign country or even joining the
armed forces of their former nation. For example, Manuel de la
Cruz immigrated from Mexico and became a U.S. citizen in the
1970s. Recently, he was elected to the state legislature in
Mexico and declared loyalty to the Mexican Republic.
Having dual nationalities certainly has its benefits. It
eases travel by allowing individuals to avoid cumbersome visa
requirements. But we should examine closely whether these
conveniences outweigh the potential problems that can arise
from conflicting loyalties. The U.S. Department of State, which
does not formally recognize dual citizenship, aptly noted that
``dual nationals owe allegiance to both United States and the
foreign country.''
In the past few years a number of nations have passed laws
allowing its citizens to become citizens of other nations. This
has invariably fed the trend of individuals retaining dual
loyalties.
In Afroyim v. Rusk the Supreme Court held that the U.S.
Government may not revoke someone's citizenship without his or
her consent. However, we should still examine whether there are
ways to improve the likelihood that naturalized citizens will
assimilate and show loyalty to the United States.
At this time, I turn now to Members for opening statements.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for purposes of
an opening statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at the
outset that I know you tend to discourage opening statements by
other Members in an effort to expedite the hearing, and I have
not sought to ask for your indulgence in many, many weeks, if
not months. So thank you for recognizing me for an opening
statement today.
I have to say that I have a special interest in the subject
at hand. When I was Chairman of this Subcommittee a number of
years ago, we had two hearings on this particular issue which
were very informative, just as today's hearing promises to be,
as well. So I have had a longtime interest in the subject, and
I very much appreciate your willingness to raise the issue
again today.
Let me begin my comments with a question. In what way is
America like Barbuda, Lesotho and Tuvalu. The answer is that
they are all countries that automatically give citizenship to
the children of illegal immigrants. Nearly every industrialized
country in the world requires at least one parent to be a
citizen or legal immigrant before a child born there becomes a
citizen. Not a single European country automatically grants
citizenship to the children of illegal immigrant parents. Many
other countries have repealed their U.S.-style citizenship
practices.
Why is birth citizenship a concern? Last year over one-half
of all births in Los Angeles, our second largest city, were to
illegal immigrants. One poll found that most of the women said
that the reason they entered the U.S. illegally was because of
automatic citizenship. Today, 42 percent of births to
immigrants are to illegal immigrant mothers, one out of every
ten births in the United States.
Once an illegal immigrant gives birth in the U.S., it is
unlikely they will ever be deported and they can then sign up
for Federal, State and local benefit programs, courtesy of the
America taxpayer. This granting of automatic citizenship flows
from a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, as the Chairman
pointed out in his opening statement. It was drafted after the
Civil War to guarantee that the recently freed slaves
rightfully received full citizenship rights. When it was
enacted in 1868, there were no illegal immigrants in the United
States because there were no immigration laws until 1875, so
drafters of the amendment could not have intended to benefit
those in our country illegally.
One law professor has referred to, ``the offense to common
morality and common sense of conferring citizenship on children
whose only connection to the United States is that their
mothers crossed the border in time to give birth here.''
Legal experts disagree as to whether a constitutional
amendment or a Federal statute is needed to eliminate birth
citizenship. However, there are three reasons why Congress can
and should act. Number one, no Supreme Court case has dealt
directly with the offspring of illegal immigrants who have
given birth in the United States. Two, the Constitution
expressly gives Congress the power to decide national
immigration policies. And three, during the debate on the 14th
amendment in 1866 the Senator who was the author said it would,
``not, of course, include persons born in the United States who
are foreigners.''
Congress is long overdue in making sure the 14th amendment
is correctly interpreted. Illegal immigration has become a
crisis in America. Our borders are overrun. More than 12
million people live in the United States illegally. Passing a
law to eliminate birth citizenship would defer illegal
immigration and reduce the burden on the taxpayer of paying for
Government benefits that go to illegal immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, again I look forward to the testimony today
and thank you for recognizing me for an opening statement.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Without
objection, all Members' statements will be made a part of the
record.
At this time, I would like to turn to the introduction of
members of our panel--very distinguished panel today. First of
all, Dr. Stanley Renshon is Professor of Political Science at
the City University of New York and Coordinator of the Graduate
Center's Interdisciplinary Program in the Psychology of Social
and Political Behavior. He is also a certified psychoanalyst,
which I believe would lead a vast majority of Americans to
suggest that you are especially qualified to testify before
Congress.
Dr. Renshon has been a Visiting Scholar and Senior Fellow
at Harvard University. He also served as a faculty member for
New York City's ``Top 40'' program, providing executive
training for top-level city officials. He has published 12
books and is the author of many articles and essays on
Presidential politics, leadership and political psychology. He
has appeared a number of times on national and international
television and radio shows.
Dr. Renshon received his Ph.D. in Political Science at the
University of Pennsylvania, was a Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale
University, and completed his graduate work in clinical
psychology at Long Island University.
Dr. John Fonte joined the Hudson Institute in March, 1999
as Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common
Culture. Dr. Fonte has previously been a Visiting Scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute and served as Senior
Researcher at the U.S. Department of Education. He is currently
on the board of the American Council for Trustees and Alumni.
He has written numerous articles and essays appearing in
national and international newspapers, journals and magazines,
and has co-edited a book. His ideas on democratic sovereignty
and international law were cited in the New York Times
Magazine's ``Year in Ideas'' as among the most noteworthy of
2004. Dr. Fonte received his Ph.D. in World History from the
University of Chicago and B.A. and M.A. in History from the
University of Arizona.
Dr. John Eastman is a Professor of Law at the Chapman
University School of Law and he also serves as Director of the
Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Prior to joining Chapman University's Law School he served as
Law Clerk to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the U.S.
Supreme Court and to Judge Michael Luttig at the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His past experience includes
practicing law at the national law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and
serving as the Director of Congressional and Public Affairs at
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during the Reagan
administration. He was the 1990 Republican nominee for Congress
in California's 34th district.
He earned his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law
School, where he graduated with high honors. He holds a Ph.D.
and M.A. in Government from the Claremont Graduate School. Dr.
Eastman completed his B.A. in Politics and Economics at the
University of Dallas and recently has served on the panel for
the Claremont Institute with less qualified members of that
panel. We appreciate that.
Peter Spiro is Associate Dean for Faculty Development at
the University of Georgia School of Law and also serves as the
Dean and Virginia Rusk Professor of International Law. Mr.
Spiro's experience in academia includes 10 years at Hofstra
University's School of Law as Tenured Professor and Associate
Dean. His articles and contributions have been published in
several law reviews and major publications, and he is a
frequent speaker in academic and policy forums.
Mr. Spiro previously served as International Affairs Fellow
at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Spiro is also a former
Law Clerk to Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court and
has worked in various positions at the National Security
Council, U.S. Department of State and the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace.
He earned his law degree from the University of Virginia
School of Law and his Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, from
Harvard College.
At this time, will the members of the panel please rise to
take the oath?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Hostettler. You may be seated.
And let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in
the affirmative.
At this time, before we take testimony from the panel, I
now yield to the gentlelady from Texas, the Ranking Member, for
purposes of an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, thank
you for your indulgence.
We were held up in a meeting that proceeded over the 2
o'clock hour, but I do want to ask unanimous consent that my
statement, in its entirety, be admitted into the record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I would like to just offer these few
thoughts as I listen to very informed and, I hope, instructive
witnesses. This is an interesting topic to take up at this time
in the backdrop of so many large issues that we must confront
here in America. But I do believe in what we call here in this
Congress the regular order, which means that we must proceed
deliberatively to assess a number of issues.
As I listen to the witnesses, let me reflect and remind you
that even though we've had Hurricane Katrina and Rita, we also
have a broken immigration system. Might I also say that in
times of devastation and tragedy, this Congress has risen to
the occasion. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member
Conyers, the Chairman of this Committee and myself, along with
other Members did pass what we call an Immigration Hurricane
Katrina Relief bill that took into consideration some of the
status changes and difficulties of those who are in immigrant
status, that might have been confronted by the horrors of
Hurricane Katrina, and I hope, ultimately, Hurricane Rita.
But today I think that we are in the midst of a hearing
that brings no solution to much. We really need comprehensive
immigration reform. We need to address the questions of
individuals who have been here in this country, working
taxpayers who really are owed at least an opportunity to their
right to citizenship.
It is interesting that we are raising a hearing about
birthright and dual citizenship when the framers of the
Constitution did not really define citizenship. The acquisition
of United States citizenship by birth and by naturalizing
depended on State laws until the enactment of the
Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790
established a definition for citizenship by naturalization, but
it did not define citizenship by birth. Isn't that interesting,
because most everyone had at that time come from somewhere
else?
Interestingly enough, even through the 1800's and 1900's,
the 20th century, we did not determine that it was a relevant
enough question to address, when I might imagine that even
though we would assess that most immigration was legal
immigration, I imagine that much was not; and therefore
individuals were born with parents who were undocumented, and
they probably became great and wonderful contributors to the
economy, to the society and to the intellect of this Nation.
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th
amendment, African Americans were not considered citizens of
the United States. In fact, I was less than a person at that
time. And I reflect on that frequently in the definition of our
history in this country. For a long period of time, we were
what we call second-class citizens.
So I wonder and hope that the hearing today will convince
those who may be questioning the value of a dual citizenship
and citizenship of those who may be undocumented, the wrong
direction that they take this country. Dual citizenship simply
means that an individual comes to this country and is allowed
to keep the citizenship of their other country.
I would wonder whether or not there is sufficient
documentation to suggest that anyone here with a dual
citizenship is a threat to our security, is not contributing to
our society, or is less of an American because they happen to
retain their citizenship in another country--maybe for family
reasons, maybe for other legitimate reasons.
And so this hearing today, though I do believe in regular
order, probably is not at the high point on our list of
priorities with all of the various needs that our country is
now facing and particularly some of the great needs that we're
facing with immigration reform.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will look forward and be
forward thinking and I hope that we will begin deliberation on
a number of immigration reform bills that have been filed,
including my Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, H.R.
2092, so that we can begin to look at really fixing the problem
and have the distinguished panel coming before us with concrete
solutions to real problems.
I don't consider dual citizenship and the citizenship of a
child born in the United States to undocumented parents as a
real problem for America.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. We thank the gentlelady.
We will now turn to testimony from our panel. I'll remind
our witnesses that we have a series of lights, and the time for
those lights, until you see the red light, is about a 5-minute
time period.
Without objection, your full written testimony will be made
a part of the record, and if you can contain your comments as
close to that 2--5-minute time period, that was not Freudian,
Dr. Renshon--if you can contain it to that 5 minutes, we would
be most appreciative so we can get questions from the Members
of the Committee.
At this time, Dr. Renshon, you're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STANLEY A. RENSHON, PROFESSOR,
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK GRADUATE CENTER
Mr. Renshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
Members of the Committee. I'm deeply honored, truly, to come
here and talk. I do so not so much as a representative or
invitee of the majority party, but rather as an American who
both studies and loves this country and is concerned about its
future.
The focus of my remarks here today is that the core issue
facing American immigration policy is our ability to integrate
tens of millions of new immigrants into the American national
community. The heart and foundation of that community consists
of our emotional attachments, a warmth and affection for, and
appreciation of, a pride in, and a commitment and a
responsibility toward this country's institutions, way of life,
and fellow Americans.
Over the past four decades our capacity to help immigrants
and Americans to become more integrated and attached has been
compromised by two powerful centrifugal forces. One is the
institutionalization of the view that race or ethnicity is and
ought to be the principal vehicle of American national
identity. The other is the view that Americans ought to trade
in their parochial national attachments in favor of a more
cosmopolitan transnational identity. Our Government, it is said
by some, should allow and even encourage this. However, I think
this country should only do so if it wishes to encourage civic
suicide.
Citizenship is a legal term and refers to the rights and
responsibilities that become attached to a certified member of
the community. Nationality, which is what I'm talking about, is
a psychological term and that refers to the emotional ties,
core understandings about the world, and common experiences
that bind Americans together. Of course, it is entirely
possible to have the rights of a citizen, but feel little
emotional attachment to the country that provides them.
Citizenship, however, without emotional attachment, is the
civic equivalent of a one-night stand.
Traditionally, America has always bet that immigrants'
self-interest in coming here can be leveraged over time into
genuine attachment, and in the past, we've won that bet
primarily because of firm expectations that immigrants would
integrate and a concerted effort to help them do so. Today, we
have neither.
Multiple attachments, of course, are a fact of life. We are
fathers to our children and children to our parents, husbands,
professors and so on. Americans, we are all these things and
more, but that doesn't mean that we can always avoid making
choices about which are primary. We can't easily be observant
Muslims and Jews at the same time, nor can we equally hold
profound emotional attachments to several countries. Dual
citizenship, especially when it entails the active
participation in the political life of an immigrant or a
citizen's foreign country of origin, leads to conflicts of
interest, attention and, most importantly, attachment.
Of course, immigrants have feelings regarding their
countries of origin, but a strong psychological and civic case
can be made that they owe and we should help them develop their
primary focus to this country. My research suggests--and I have
a new book coming out on it in 2 weeks, I think. My research
suggests that 151 countries, including the United States, allow
some form of dual citizenship. Most, with the exception of the
United States, strongly regulate it without, however, outlawing
it. They do so no doubt for the same reasons that lie behind
the four policy suggestions that are in my prepared statement,
concerns with the viability of citizen attachment in their
national communities.
Americans would be surprised and, I think, extremely
disturbed to learn that it is entirely legal, and in some
circles preferred, that American citizens vote in foreign
elections, serve in governmental positions, take part in the
army of foreign countries. These practices do nothing to
advance the integration of citizens in this country.
Allow me then two quick points before I conclude. First,
the impact of dual citizenship falls disproportionately on the
United States. India and Mexico, for example, allow dual
citizenship but neither has to worry about the civic impact of
millions of dual citizens arriving in their countries. The
United States does. Of the over 22 million immigrants to the
United States between 1961 and 2003, over 80 percent were from
dual-citizenship-allowing countries. That's over 17.5 million,
and it doesn't count the estimated 8.5 million illegal
immigrants, 85 percent of whom come from countries that support
dual citizenship and also doesn't take into account the
children of both groups nor the Americans who are already here,
who would be eligible for dual citizenship in the second, third
or later generation.
Second, and importantly, immigrant-sending countries have
discovered the self-interested advantage of having large groups
of nationals become American citizens while at the same time
retaining strong emotional ties to their home countries. They
do so with the direct and express expectation that these dual
citizens will contribute ``sustained economic and political
contributions in the name of patriotism and hometown loyalty.''
That's a quote, it's not my quote, and it comes from Alejandro
Portis at Princeton, who's a very well-respected immigration
scholar.
Just what are these political contributions that they're
expected to make? Let me give you one example before leaving.
In 2001, Juan Hernandez, a former University of Texas professor
was named as the first American to serve in a Mexican
President's cabinet. His role was specifically to organize and
mobilize Americans in the United States of Mexican descent. And
what was he mobilizing them to do? Well, he actually went on
Nightline and made it quite clear, he wants to, and I quote,
``have them think Mexico first. I want the third generation,
the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico
first.''
Americans, on the other hand, might well be excused if they
wonder why one of their fellow citizens is legally entitled to
work for a foreign government advocating that Americans put
other countries first.
Mr. Chairman, it's no surprise that other countries try to
maximize their self-interest through their immigrants here. The
real surprise is that some Americans want to help them take
advantage of this.
The question before us is whether we should encourage their
success, the foreign governments' success, at the cost of our
own civic, cultural institutions. I believe that the sensible
answer to this, based on psychological theory, civic
responsibility as well as the needs of our national community,
is a very clear and direct ``no.''
Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Renshon.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Renshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley A. Renshon
Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Fonte.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN FONTE, SENIOR FELLOW,
THE HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Fonte. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler. I'm John Fonte,
Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. My testimony today has
the endorsement of the Citizenship Roundtable, an alliance of
the Hudson Institute, and the American Legion. At this year's
convention, the American Legion adopted a resolution
encouraging Congress to enforce the oath of renunciation and
allegiance and to reject dual citizenship in principle and
restrict its application in practice. I would like to introduce
the entire resolution, No. 165.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Mr. Fonte. America has had more success assimilating
immigrants than any other country in the history of the world
because since the early days of the Republic, we have pursued a
policy of patriotic assimilation. At the heart of patriotic
assimilation is the transfer of allegiance. For more than 200
years, immigrants have taken an oath renouncing prior
allegiance and transferring sole political allegiance to the
United States of America.
The transfer of allegiance is central to America because of
the kind of country that we are. If we were a country that did
not receive large numbers of immigrants, this would not be as
important in practical terms, but it is precisely because we
are a nation of assimilated immigrants that we must be serious
about dual allegiance.
We are a civic, not an ethnic nation. American citizenship
is not based on belonging to a particular ethnicity, but on
political loyalty to American democracy. Regimes based on
ethnicity support the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, for one
is always a member of the ethnic nation. In 1812, Americans
went to war against the concept of the ethnic nation and the
doctrine of perpetual allegiance. At this time, Great Britain
under the slogan ``Once an Englishman, always an Englishman''
refused to recognize the renunciation clause of our citizenship
oath.
Today, some immigrant sending countries appear to be closer
to the British position in 1812 than to the American position
of a civic nation as opposed to an ethnic nation.
Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of
equality of citizenship. Dual citizens are specially
privileged, supra citizens who have voting power in more than
one nation and special privileges like EU privileges that the
majority of their fellow American citizens do not have.
I recently talked to a British immigrant who had become an
American citizen while retaining British citizenship. This
immigrant dual citizen cast ballots in 2004 in both the U.S.
and British elections within 5 months of each other.
Now, most Americans instinctively recognize something is
wrong with this situation and that it mocks our concept of
equality of citizenship. Dual citizens exist in a political
space beyond the U.S. Constitution. As members of foreign
constitutional communities, they have different and, in some
cases, competing and conflicting responsibilities, interests
and commitments. By objective practical necessity, as well as
moral obligation, these other responsibilities, interests and
commitments dilute their commitment and allegiance to the
United States of America.
The great New Deal lawyer and Supreme Court Justice, Felix
Frankfurter, was absolutely right when he said that voting in a
foreign election and serving in a foreign government revealed
``not only something less than complete and unswerving
allegiance to the United States, but also elements of
allegiance to another country in some measure at least
inconsistent with American citizenship.''
Now, it's sometimes argued even though the principle of
retaining political loyalty to the old country is inconsistent
with American democracy, the result is a good thing in practice
because many immigrant dual citizens promote pro-American and
democratic values in the elections of their birth countries.
Now, this sounds reasonable, but it's not always the case.
For example, dual citizen Manuel de la Cruz was elected to
the Zacatecas legislature in Mexico as a member of the
traditionally anti-American Democratic Revolutionary Party, the
PRD of Mexico. If you look at the website of the California
PRD, the political home to many naturalized American citizens,
it contains untruths about the United States, including the
charge that Mexican migrants live in the United States without
human rights.
In 2003, the California PRD contained pictures not only of
Che Guevara, but of Lenin as well. Here is a picture of Lenin
on the California PRD website. So much for the promotion of
American values.
The issue is clear. Should we continue to promote the rapid
increase in dual allegiance, which will happen by default if no
congressional action is taken, or should we reject dual
allegiance in principle and practice? If enacted into law
without changes, McCain-Kennedy would result in massive
increases in the number of American citizens who have dual
allegiance. This harms patriotic assimilation. This is the
opposite of our great historical success.
What can be done? There's plenty that can be done to
restrict dual allegiance within the bounds of the Afroyim
Supreme Court decision. Many acts, such as voting in a foreign
election, can be made felonies. Exceptions for serving the
national security interests of the United States could be made.
The purpose of such legislation is to affirm our deepest
principles; it's not to punish people who may be well meaning
and following current practice. The legislation would not be
retroactive, but simply say, from now on these are the rules.
Legislation has been introduced today--I think at this very
moment--by Congressman J.D. Hayworth, the Enforcement First
Act, that will do exactly this in title 7 and restrict dual
allegiance.
In opposing dual allegiance, we of the Citizenship
Roundtable stand with the Founding Fathers, including both
Hamilton and Jefferson, those political rivals, and also
political rivals, Theodore Roosevelt and Democratic President
Woodrow Wilson. We stand with Justice Louis Brandeis and his
protege, Justice Felix Frankfurter, and with the administration
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which said, ``Taking an active part
in the political affairs of a foreign state by voting in the
election of that state involves a political attachment and
practical allegiance thereto which is inconsistent with
continued allegiance to the United States.''
For FDR yesterday and for Americans today this is simply
common sense. Now is the time, during the current debate over
immigration, for Congress to reject dual allegiance in
principle and restrict and narrow its application in practice.
Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Fonte.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fonte follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Fonte
Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Eastman.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, PROFESSOR, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Eastman. Chairman Hostettler, thank you for having me,
and good to see you again.
Before I begin my formal remarks, I can't let go
unchallenged the incorrect statement by Representative Jackson
Lee about the founders and their understanding of citizenship.
African Americans in a number of States were recognized as
citizens; and the notion that the ``three-fifths'' clause
treats African Americans as less than whole when its purpose
was to deny additional representation to slave owners, I think
needs to be challenged every time that canard is made and,
hopefully, we'll get beyond that.
I come here to talk about this important issue, and I
commend you for taking it up. In light of the Supreme Court's
Hamdi case, I think now is a perfect opportunity to revisit a
100-year-old error by the Supreme Court.
Hamdi was born in Louisiana, as you pointed out in your
opening remarks, to Saudi parents. This misunderstanding of the
citizenship clause then allowed us or required us to treat him
as a citizen. He was eventually captured, engaged in armed
conflict against the forces of the United States because he
never had any allegiance to the United States as we expect of
our citizens. And this is an opportunity to revisit that.
The Constitution's text actually has two components. It
says ``birth on United States soil'' and ``subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.'' The ``subject of the jurisdiction''
clause, as I elaborate at greater length in my written
testimony, means complete allegiance owing, subject to
prosecution for treason-type jurisdiction, not the mere
territorial jurisdiction that anybody coming here visiting as a
tourist is subject to if they exceed our speed limits on our
highways.
I think it's important to understand that Yaser Hamdi never
had that more complete jurisdiction and therefore was not a
citizen as required by the Constitution's text. Textually, the
birth-is-enough view renders the second clause of the
Constitution's citizenship clause entirely redundant.
Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which
the 14th amendment was intended to constitutionalize, makes
very clear that all persons born in the United States and not
subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the
United States.
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that
language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ``When we talk about
`subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' it means
complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.''
Senator Jacob Howard said that it's ``a full and complete
jurisdiction.''
The interpretative gloss given by Senators Trumbull and
Howard, adopted by Congress, understood by those that ratified
the 14th amendment, was accepted by the Supreme Court in its
first two cases addressing the citizenship clause. In the
Slaughter-House cases, both the majority and the dissenting
justices in that case recognized it meant this more complete
allegiance-owing jurisdiction.
That was only dicta in Slaughter-House, but in the 1884
case of Elk v. Wilkins the Supreme Court held that a claimant
was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at
birth if he was merely subject in some respect or degree, but
completely subject to the political jurisdiction and owing it
direct and immediate allegiance.
Now, in 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. And I can
understand the sentiments of the Court for doing so. In the
case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a
Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but
subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor
of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to
renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there
falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as
to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for
conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here,
whether here permanently or temporarily, whether here legally
or illegally, or the worst case scenario, whether here with a
design to cause harm to the United States, to engage in armed
conflict against United States.
The Hamdi case, I think, makes very clear that the prospect
of potential terrorists coming across our border and giving
birth to children once they're here in order to specifically
open up a Fifth Column on our shores is a very real
possibility.
Now, you might want to defer to the Supreme Court's
decision and say, Congress can't do anything about it. There
are a couple of reasons, that I'll close with, where I think
that's not the case here.
First, I think the decision is just simply wrong in its
broader application, and it was therefore dicta only in its
broader application not dealing with particulars of that case.
But second, the Supreme Court itself has regularly
recognized that this body has plenary power over naturalization
policy. You don't have power to go below the floor that the
Constitution sets, but we should not be broadly interpreting
what the Constitution mandates in order to restrict the plenary
power of this body of Congress to define and determine
naturalization for this country.
Again, Hamdi's case makes this powerful for us on the
urgency of taking this up now. The notion that we can have dual
allegiance, that we can expect some of our citizens to actually
take up arms for countries that might one day be engaged in war
against us means that now is the time to revisit this, to get
the constitutional minimum set correctly and leave anything
else beyond that to the policy judgment of Congress.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Eastman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eastman follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Eastman
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Spiro.
TESTIMONY OF PETER SPIRO, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT AND DEAN AND VIRGINIA RUSK PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Spiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify on the subject of dual citizenship.
Dual citizenship is, in my view, a phenomenon of
considerable importance. The dramatic increase in the incidence
of dual citizenship is evidence of the changing orientation of
individuals in a transformed global order.
Although I believe dual citizenship to be a matter of great
importance, I do not believe that it is the appropriate target
of legislative action. Dual citizenship is an almost entirely
benign phenomenon. Dual citizenship poses benefits not only to
individual Americans; in my opinion, dual citizenship
affirmatively serves the natural interest as well.
I would like to make three brief points in my opening
statement before the Committee. First, it is important that we
understand all the various sources of dual citizenship, because
that inevitably colors our thinking on the issue. Second, I
would like to explain why dual citizenship poses no threat to
the national community and to rebut some of the arguments you
have heard leveled today against the status. And finally I
would like briefly to explain how embracing dual citizenship
will advance our interests by advancing the entrenchment of
democratic values on a global basis.
From the earlier testimony, from Drs. Fonte and Renshon,
one might get the idea that dual citizenship arises only among
naturalized Americans who retain their homeland citizenship.
Nothing could be further from the case; in fact, many cases of
dual citizenship are also arising from two other contexts.
Tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of
native-born Americans are now acquiring additional citizenships
on the basis of their ancestry. These Americans largely hail
from well-established, fully assimilated immigrant communities.
Many thousands of native-born Americans, for instance, have
acquired Irish citizenship on the basis of even just a single
grandparent's roots in Ireland.
Many other native-born Americans have similarly acquired
Italian, Greek, British and Israeli citizenship while they
remain Americans living in the United States. These Americans
are seeking to solidify their ties to their ancestral homelands
at the same time they remain good Americans in every sense of
the term.
Dual citizenship is not just about new immigrants from
countries such as Mexico. It is now a deeply pervasive
phenomenon.
The other major source of dual citizenship about which
we've heard nothing today results from the birth to parents of
different nationalities, one of whom is American. In the face
of globalization, this source of dual citizenship is also
dramatically on the rise. In this context, dual citizenship is
about sustaining the identities of one's own parents. To deny
dual citizenship in such cases is to force children to choose
between their parents' identities. Again, this phenomenon is
increasingly pervasive and cuts across nationalities.
It is not in any way a problem of assimilation. In these
cases, we are talking about the children of Americans. These
sources of dual citizenship put a different face on the
phenomenon. As you contemplate legislative action on the
subject, I would ask you to contemplate these dual citizens as
well as those who acquire the status in the process of
naturalization.
Second, even for those who do acquire the status through
naturalization, dual citizenship imposes none of the dangers
asserted by the other witnesses here today. With the minor
exception of service in senior Federal Government positions,
dual citizenship poses no concrete harms. Of course, dual
citizenship reflects continuing ties to a country of origin,
but that is a part of the great American tradition of
pluralistic identities. The citizenship tie by itself makes an
individual no more likely to do the bidding of another
government than the U.S. political system.
In the era before wide acceptance of dual citizenship,
ethnic communities have worked within the U.S. political system
to advance the interests of their homeland, as surely all
Members of this Committee have experienced firsthand. Irish
Americans, Jewish Americans, Italian Americans, Armenian
Americans, Greek Americans, Polish Americans--the list is
almost as long as the list of the nations of the world. All of
these American communities have historically lobbied and voted
in ways calculated to benefit their countries of origin.
If ``hyphenated Americans'' can undertake such political
action without threatening our system, surely the system can
absorb the political empowerment of ``ampersand Americans,''
nor would the maintenance of origin nationality retard the
culture assimilation of new Americans. In the contemporary
context, dual citizenship has emerged as a way of expressing
one's continuing homeland identity. Maintaining alternate
Italian or Irish citizenship is akin to membership in the
Knights of Columbus or the Order of Hibernians. It has become a
way of saying who we are.
Finally, accepting dual citizenship advances U.S. national
interests on a global basis. Many dual citizens will remain
politically active in their homelands even after they become
Americans. Through dual citizenship the United States now
enjoys a direct voice in the politics of other countries. I do
not mean that such individuals will crudely do the bidding of
the United States in those countries, but such individuals as
Americans will surely work to sustain and entrench
constitutional democratic systems in their countries of origin.
Having absorbed our political traditions in the process of
becoming Americans, dual citizens will be able to put them to
work back home. That serves our national interests in advancing
the global cause of democracy.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest briefly
that the politics of dual citizenship also cuts against any
legislative action on the subject. It is remarkable how little
opposition has surfaced in this country to dual nationality in
the face of the quiet explosion and the number of dual
citizens. That indeed may be explained by the fact that dual
citizenship is increasingly commonplace. More and more
Americans have nephews and nieces, siblings and other family
members, friends, neighbors and coworkers who are dual citizens
and also good Americans.
This is not an immigration issue, this is a matter of how
Americans, many of them native born, are living and connecting
in a new world. The maintenance of additional citizenship ties
is not a problem that needs fixing. I would urge you not to
take action against those who have or would like to acquire
dual citizenship.
Thank you for considering my views on this subject.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Spiro.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Spiro
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Representative Jackson Lee, and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today on the issues of dual and birthright citizenship.
For the record, I am Rusk Professor of International Law at the
University of Georgia Law School, where I teach subjects relating to
immigration and international law. I am a former law clerk to Judge
Stephen F. Williams on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
and to Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court of the United
States. I have also served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of the
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, as well as Director for
Democracy on the staff of the National Security Council. I was a
recipient of a 1988-89 Open Society Institute Individual Project
Fellowship to study the law of U.S. citizenship. I was a participant in
the 2001-02 German Marshall Fund project on dual citizenship, and have
written widely on issues relating to citizenship and nationality.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Questioning Barriers to Naturalization, 13
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 479 (1999); The Citizenship Dilemma,
51 Stanford Law Review 597 (1999); Dual Nationality and the Meaning of
Citizenship, 46 Emory Law Journal 1411 (1997); Political Rights and
Dual Nationality, in Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals: Evolution and
Prospects (David Martin & Kai Heilbroner eds., 2002); Mandated
Membership, Diluted Identity: Citizenship, Globalization, and
International Law, in Globalization and Citizenship (Alison Brysk &
Gershon Shafir eds., 2003); Embracing Dual Nationality, in Dual
Nationality, Social Rights And Federal Citizenship in the U.S. and
Europe (Randall Hansen & Patrick Weil eds., 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last fifteen years has witnessed a dramatic increase in the
number of individuals globally who hold more than one nationality, and
the United States has been no exception to this trend. Where dual
citizenship was once condemned by most countries of the world, and was
largely an anomaly insofar as it was tolerated at all, it is now
accepted by a growing majority of states.
There is something about dual nationality that seems to provoke a
reflexive distaste. Some Americans might be astonished, and perhaps
appalled, to learn of dramatic trends toward the near-complete
toleration of dual citizenship. But that astonishment and opprobrium
will not suffice to justify the suppression of dual nationality. Such
disfavor is no more than an echo of a time in which dual nationality
did pose a serious threat to the peace of nations. As that threat has
evaporated, accepting dual nationality may now be in the affirmative
national interest--by way of facilitating the global dispersion of
democratic values--as well as a matter of affirming the full breadth of
individual identity. It is, in any case, too late for the entrenchment
of dual nationality to be reversed. Dual nationality has become a fact
of globalization.
It has not always been so. Nationality was once a singular
characteristic. A defining feature of nation-states and modern
international relations has been the exclusivity of national
identification and the notion that individuals should have one--and
only one--nationality. Just as the nation-states of the 19th and 20th
centuries carved up the world's territory to the end that all was
spoken for but none shared, so too did they try to allocate the world's
population.
And they had some success: Although migration has always resulted
in some cases of dual nationality, until recently dual nationality
remained an anomaly, a status disfavored to the point that it was
considered immoral. The venerable American diplomat George Bancroft
observed in 1849 that nations should ``as soon tolerate a man with two
wives as a man with two countries; as soon bear with polygamy as that
state of double allegiance.'' In 1915, Teddy Roosevelt derided the
``theory'' of dual nationality as ``a self-evident absurdity.'' Dual
nationality was thought to represent an intolerable division of the
loyalty owed to one's country. Almost all states canceled citizenship
upon naturalization elsewhere; until the late 1960s, U.S. law imposed a
hair-trigger standard on dual nationals under which American
citizenship was forfeited for so much as voting in another state of
nationality.
But this antipathy toward dual nationality is fast eroding, and the
incidence of dual nationality is now growing at an explosive pace.
Today, many are born with dual nationality, the product of binational
parentage. Others acquire dual national status with new citizenships,
retaining birth citizenship upon naturalization in another country. In
both cases, states are moving to recognize, rather than to quash, the
retention of other nationalities. Some ``sending'' states (that is,
states with high emigration) are actually encouraging the acquisition
of other nationalities. Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Italy, India,
the Philippines, and Thailand are among many recent additions to the
list of those countries allowing birth citizens to retain nationality
when they naturalize elsewhere.
Even in most ``receiving'' countries, including the United States,
the quiet rise in dual nationality has attracted little controversy;
the prospect of millions of dual Mexican-American nationals
concentrated on the southern border, no less, has failed to provoke any
policy initiatives for deterring dual nationality. As globalization
fuels migration, and states no longer attempt to suppress dual
nationality, that status is now almost commonplace. Though some still
decry the status, these opponents have failed to attract any
significant public attention or following.
ROOTS OF DISFAVOR
To the extent that popular distaste for dual nationality can be
elaborated into an argument, it usually hinges on the impossibility of
divided loyalties. In the popular mind, dual nationality has been
loosely identified with shadowy fifth columns and saboteurs.
The historical explanation is far more prosaic. The origin of the
norm against dual nationality had nothing to do with spies and little
to do with loyalties; rather, it was rooted in the intractable
challenges that dual nationals posed to the institution of diplomatic
protection. In the old world, the rights of individuals depended
entirely on nationality, and sovereigns could do as they pleased with
their own. With respect to a dual national, the right of one state to
protect its citizens from mistreatment by another ran up against the
other state's well-established sovereign discretion over its own
nationals.
Disputes over the treatment of dual nationals often posed serious
irritants in bilateral relations of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
At one time or another, such disputes were central to U.S. relations
with all the major European powers.
A frequent cause of such disputes was the refusal of the
``sending'' states of the day (including Great Britain, Italy, and the
German principalities) to recognize the capacity of individuals to
transfer nationality--that is, to abandon their original nationality
and become Americans. For instance, immigrants who had naturalized in
the U.S. were, during visits to their homeland, prosecuted for failing
to satisfy military service obligations in their country of origin.
U.S. diplomats would attempt to shield Americans from such imposition
against the vigorous objections of the other country of nationality.
Whether deserving of protection or not, dual nationals posed an
intolerable threat to relations among states for whom warfare was often
a viable policy option. The War of 1812 was in large part provoked by
Great Britain's attempt to enlist U.S. citizens whose naturalization it
did not recognize--in other words, a problem of dual nationality--and
U.S. foreign relations compilations for the 19th and early 20th century
are replete with high-level disputes relating to dual nationals. By way
of a solution, the U.S. negotiated treaties (including the so-called
Bancroft conventions of the 1860s and 1870s, negotiated with several
German and Scandanavian countries) providing for the attribution of
sole U.S. nationality for immigrants, with a reversion to sole original
nationality upon permanent return to a home country. These bilateral
arrangements found a backstop in U.S. nationality law, under which a
variety of acts (including voting, holding office, serving in the armed
forces, or naturalizing in another country) resulted in the automatic
loss of American citizenship.
Through the middle of the 20th century, dual nationality in any
sort of active sense was thus effectively prohibited under U.S. law.
But this regime (also adopted by a vast majority of other countries and
not significantly softened until the last decade) had nothing really to
do with loyalty or allegiance. In some cases, Americans holding passive
nationality (through parentage) in Axis nations simply chose the other
side when it came to military service, but with little complication
(they simply lost their U.S. citizenship in the act of enlisting
elsewhere). There appears not a single notable instance of a dual
national having engaged in espionage--perhaps not surprisingly, as any
real spy would be foolish to advertise the competing attachment.
POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE
If the rule against dual nationality was founded in issues of
diplomatic protection, that foundation has been washed away. In today's
world, of course, sovereigns cannot do as they please with their
subjects--that's what human rights are all about. Other countries now
protest the treatment of individuals regardless of nationality. Against
this backdrop, dual nationals present little more of a threat to
bilateral relations than do mono-nationals. In contrast to the 19th and
early 20th centuries, it is today unlikely that a dual national could
by fact of his or her status rupture diplomatic relations between
states. Indeed, there may be some benefit to encouraging the
maintenance of dual nationality, at the same time that accepting the
status allows individuals to realize their complete identities.
Objections to dual citizenship are sometimes posed in terms of the
possibility of diluting full civic engagement in more than one country;
in terms of the difficulty of following different cultural traditions;
and in terms of the possibility of conflicting attachments and
loyalties. In fact, dual citizenship poses few problems along any of
these metrics. Indeed, accepting dual citizenship is now not only in
the interest of many individual Americans but also in the interest of
the nation as a whole.
ENGAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE
First, individuals can be fully engaged and knowledgeable citizens
of more than one country. Political and civic capacities are not a
zero-sum proposition. All of us have associational involvements aside
from our participation in national affairs as citizens, and it has
never been thought that such additional memberships detract from
citizenship. Quite the contrary. Involvement in state and local
politics does not preclude responsible participation in national
processes. Likewise, participating in the affairs of another country
does not categorically preclude responsible participation in the
affairs of this one. Of course, if one spends all one's time at work,
or on church affairs or volunteering for the Red Cross, or on local
matters, there may be little time left over for national politics--the
same might hold true where a dual national concentrated his or her
energies on the other country of nationality. But we don't cancel the
citizenship of the Red Cross volunteer; the incapacity objection
against dual nationality thus falls short. Dual citizens can be
responsible participants in both countries of nationality.
Dual citizens can also, perhaps even more clearly, remain informed
participants in multiple polities. The communications revolution has
settled that question. The Internet now provides easy global access to
local media, so that even the isolated individual can stay in touch
with homeland developments. Of course, most emigrants tend physically
to congregate in some forum (often living in the same neighborhoods in
their country of settlement). In practice, the channels of information
are multiple, and sometimes almost as dense as they would be back home.
MAINTAINING DIFFERENT TRADITIONS
If the question here is whether individuals can follow two
different cultural traditions, it is beside the point. Mono-national
Americans follow vastly different cultural traditions among themselves.
It is not a requirement of U.S. naturalization (as it was until
recently in Germany) that one have culturally assimilated; there is no
shared American canon (an equivalent to Schiller, Goethe, and Wagner)
that is essential to the American identity. Of course, one can--many
do--continue to follow the cultural traditions of one's homeland even
if one terminates the formal citizenship tie to that country. That,
indeed, is a part of our national tradition.
It would be quite another thing simultaneously to maintain
different political traditions. One can hardly be an old-fashioned
monarchist and a democrat at the same time. To the extent that
citizenship is mostly about political rights (that is what marks the
primary difference between the status of permanent residents, aliens,
and citizens), the political traditions argument might have held sway
against immigrants from the Sicilian village or the Lithuanian shtetl.
But this objection has largely been overtaken by the global trend in
favor of democratic governance. Old-fashioned monarchists have gone the
way of the dodo bird, and understanding of basic democratic governance
is now nearly universal. There are, of course, some old-fashioned
dictators still around. But those who hale from such countries do not
typically subscribe to totalitarianism. Even when they wish to retain
their homeland citizenship, it is out of attachment to the country, not
to the political system. Of course, most who emigrate from repressive
political systems are doing so precisely because they oppose their
homeland regimes. There is only one political tradition today, and dual
nationals will be as much a part of it as their mono-national
counterparts.
THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICTING ``CORE'' ATTACHMENTS
That leaves the most prominent contemporary objection to dual
nationality: the specter of an electoral fifth column. As the political
columnist and ardent dual-nationality critic Georgie Anne Geyer wrote
of Mexico's recent acceptance of dual-nationality status (which could,
at least in theory, create a population of several million dual
Mexican-American citizens), it ``creates a kind of Mexican political
lobby of newly enfranchised citizens of Mexican descent whose cultural
allegiance would remain in Mexico.'' Similarly, the restrictionist
Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) claims that the
Mexican government is ``attempting to maintain the allegiance of a huge
voting bloc in U.S. elections.''
But to what end? Globalization and the end of the Cold War have
greatly reduced the number of issues on which states suffer distinctly
conflicting interests. On trade issues, for example, Mexican national
interests in most cases coincides with the interests of American
consumers (leaving aside the improbability that dual nationals would
command significant legislative representation). In that case, can it
be deemed somehow against the ``national'' interest to vote in a way
calculated to benefit another country?
Of course, the citizenship tie will hardly be determinative of
voting behavior. Americans often vote with an eye to the interests of
their ethnic community; indeed, that is at the core of our political
tradition. Mexicans who naturalize as U.S. citizens and who abandon
their Mexican nationality in the process (which used to be the case by
operation of Mexican law) could, of course, continue to vote Mexican
interests even in the absence of the formal link. On the other side, it
seems vastly to overestimate the current significance of citizenship to
assume that an individual who retains alternate nationality will
necessarily vote accordingly. Citizens are hardly a docile herd, ready
unthinkingly to do the bidding of their governmental masters under
solemn oaths of loyalty. Emigrants, especially, tend not to accept the
command of homeland rulers, and their political conduct is likely to be
driven more by other interests than those of their alternate
nationality.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL INTEREST
Dual nationality is not only possible; it poses affirmative
benefits. This is true whether one considers the issue as one of
national interests or of individual rights.
From a national interests perspective, dual citizenship presents a
tool in solidifying the global reach of our constitutional values. A
naturalizing alien who gives up his or her original citizenship is
limited in the extent to which it is possible thereafter to influence
the political processes of the homeland. But that seems
counterproductive to the American national interest insofar as we may
want him to exercise such influence. Naturalizing aliens are likely to
absorb American democratic mentalities. If they maintain dual
citizenship, they will be able to put those democratic tendencies to
work back home. One can plausibly assert as evidence that the
participation of dual nationals of Latin American and Caribbean
countries resident in the United States has been a significant factor
in successful democratic transitions. So even a traditional policy
calculation of dual nationality points to accepting dual nationality.
That calculation is stronger still when considered from a rights
perspective. Nationality may be an instrument of state control, but it
is also an important form of individual identity and free association.
Restrictions on dual nationality thus comprise restrictions on
identity, as are restrictions on other forms of association; denying a
person's full identity both as American and as British or Israeli or
Dominican is not so far from denying someone's identity as an American
and as a member of a religion or political group or even a family. The
last category is especially important in this context. For those born
with dual nationality to parents of a different nationality, a rule
against dual-national status forces the child to choose between the
two. In the absence of any significant cost to society in the
maintenance of dual nationality, forcing that choice--and the loss it
may well represent to the individual--seems unjustifiable.
Here to Stay
And so what of such solemn terms as ``loyalty'' and ``allegiance''
that have tended to drape discussions of dual nationality? National
citizenship may now resemble something akin to membership in other
groups--religions, corporations, localities, and the innumerable other
elements of civil society. Nationality no longer defines individual
identities in the way that it used to, and perhaps nations can no
longer jealously demand that their membership remain a monogamous one.
Maintaining membership in another national community may have emerged
to be no more threatening than maintaining membership in the Catholic
Church, the Knights of Columbus, the Sierra Club, or Amnesty
International.
The deeper significance aside, it seems clear that multiple
nationality is here to stay. U.S. law now fully tolerates the status.
Americans who naturalize elsewhere retain their U.S. citizenship unless
they really want to renounce it (a practice now protected under
constitutional rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court); foreigners who
naturalize in the U.S. may retain their original nationality, to the
extent permitted by the country of origin (the oath of naturalization,
under which new citizens are required to renounce absolutely allegiance
to foreign powers, has never been enforced). Together with those born
with dual nationality, the number of dual nationals is growing
dramatically. It is remarkable how little opposition has surfaced in
this country to dual nationality in the face of this quiet explosion.
That, indeed, may be explained by the fact that dual citizenship is
increasingly commonplace, and that more and more Americans have nephews
and nieces, siblings and other family members, friends, neighbors and
co-workers, who are dual citizens and also good Americans. And more
Americans of a broadening range of national origins are themselves
acquiring the status, not just among new immigrant groups, but
including many among those whose Irish, Italian, Jewish, and British
ancestors came to the United States long ago.
Nor is there any clear mechanism available for policing against
multiple citizenship even if the will emerged to undertake some sort of
enforcement action. The Supreme Court's protection of the rights of
American citizens to retain their citizenship even if they acquire an
alternate citizenship effectively precludes legislative action against
the status. For the United States to require the termination of
original citizenship upon naturalization as an American would present
an administrative nightmare, and deter the assimilation of many
individuals who are already in our midst as permanent resident aliens.
On the contrary, we should be welcoming new Americans even as they
maintain their homeland ties in the great American tradition of
pluralist identities. That, in any case, is the future we face. Thank
you for this opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Mr. Hostettler. At this time we'll turn to questions by
Members of the Subcommittee.
Dr. Renshon, what problems are posed when an individual
attempts to carry out the responsibilities of being a citizen
in two countries? I would especially like for you to possibly
answer it in the context of the example that you made in your
testimony--I'm trying to recall it here, that you talked about
a Juan Hernandez as being named the first American to serve in
a Mexican President's cabinet.
You went on to say, according to your testimony, he wants
Mexican Americans in the United States to think, ``Mexico
first. I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I
want them all to think Mexico first.''
If you could potentially elaborate on some specifics that
you think might--issues that Mexico might be considered first
politically and then, secondly as an aside, I guess maybe to
answer first--and maybe you don't know the answer to this
question--but could Mr. Hernandez have been a member of the
President's cabinet in Mexico if he was not a citizen of
Mexico?
Mr. Renshon. I don't know the answer to your second
question but let me backtrack first to the general question.
When we talk about emotional attachments, I'm trying to get
across the point that we're talking about a rough
preponderance. I think John Fonte used the term complete and
unswerving, sort of the idea of the 100 percent American.
That's not my particular point of view.
What I'm trying to say is that what we need are people who,
on balance, are tilted toward their American nationality. Now
that percentage will differ with certain people, it will differ
over time, but what we want to do is bind people over time to
the American political system. And I think what we do and what
we don't do helps to solidify those attachments.
I think when you allow people to vote in countries other
than the United States--and, remember, when you're talking
about voting in another country, you're not just talking about
going and pressing a lever; we now have the phenomenon of
governments sending their representatives to barnstorm in the
United States to organize a campaign in the confines of the
United States, so it's a real process which is ongoing.
I quote in the presentation a piece by Robert Weisberg,
who's a political scientist; and one of the things he studied,
using the national election statistics, was that the act of
voting itself cemented people to the political process
regardless of whether they won or lost. Usually we think if you
win the election, you're a happy camper. But what his research
showed was that simply participating in an election was itself
emotionally cementing. Well, if it's true for Americans, it's
true for Americans doing that abroad.
So my point is simply that we have to try in a lot of
different ways to try to foster the attachment of Americans. In
part, we have to keep them from doing things, and we also have
to do certain things to help them along.
This isn't the place to talk about integrating immigrants,
but in my book I have a chapter on what we ought to do about
that, and one of the things that I suggest is that we ought to
have free English for any immigrant who wants to have it. I
know there are many people who want to learn, and English is
the key route to assimilation, because through that you have
experience, through that you have jobs, through that you're a
part of the community and you gather up the experience over
time that helps you to be more of an American than you are what
you used to be. It's a process.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Dr. Eastman, in your opinion what class of persons did the
authors of the 14th amendment intend to include as being,
``subject to the jurisdiction,'' of the United States? For
example, what about the children of legal permanent residents,
temporary visitors or tourists on tourist visas, temporary
workers and illegal aliens.
Mr. Eastman. Mr. Chairman, I don't think, as an original
matter, their understanding was that it would include any of
those classifications, that subject to the full and complete
jurisdiction, this allegiance-owing type of jurisdiction that
we're talking about meant that they really could have only a
single citizenship. And the fact that they were children and
therefore owed allegiance through their parents to a different
sovereign, whether the parents were here legally or illegally,
temporarily or permanently, did not alter the fact that that
was the kind of sovereign jurisdiction that was envisioned in
the 14th amendment.
And it came up, in particular, in the discussions, debates
over ratification and the drafting of the 14th amendment with
respect to Native Americans. Even with respect to Native
Americans, who in one sense clearly owed at least a derivative
allegiance to the United States, their primary allegiance was
to their tribe, and the discussion was that that was not
sufficient for this mandatory citizenship of the Constitution.
And I'll take up an issue on that point to show what the
confusion about citizenship and sovereignty, what impact it can
have in light of Native Americans.
In California, for example, we have this great confusion
about Indian tribes running gambl enterprises that are
otherwise contrary to California law, and soliciting Government
monopoly protections for that gaming by weighing in heavily in
the State political process and then turning around and
claiming exemption from California's campaign finance laws
because they're a ``sovereign, independent nation'' and ought
not be subject to those laws. It creates a distorting factor in
our politics. That's but one minor example.
The notion that the millions of illegal immigrants in
California and Texas and elsewhere on our border are not going
to have that same kind of distorting influence if we recognize
citizenship here I think, to say that that doesn't give us any
concrete arms, I think is to completely misunderstand the
nature of the confusion that arises over citizenship questions.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee,
for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I'm
contemplating what my questions will be to try to bring some
sort of order to this line of reasoning.
Let me first of all say that--not that it bears a great
weight, but I happen to know Juan Hernandez and Tony Garza, two
individuals that you cited, Mr. Renshon. Is that correct?
Mr. Renshon. I only cited the first, not the second.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In the article I'm looking at, I see Tony
Garza as well.
Mr. Renshon. I thought you meant in my talk.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm reading your article and since I know
both of them, bring it to your attention.
Tony Garza happens to be the Ambassador from the United
States to Mexico. I think both Juan Hernandez and Mr. Garza are
products of U.S. schools.
But what I wanted to raise is, can I get from Mr. Renshon
and Mr. Fonte any concrete problems associated with dual
citizenship beyond the sort of nebulous generic ``I don't like
immigrants'' issue dealing with allegiance and assimilation.
I'm sure you want to comment on sort of the adjectives that
I've utilized, but Mr. Spiro, if you would then expand on your
points about the whole issue of assimilation, the whole issue
of a new immigrant who wants to just connect to the home
country, the ancestral home, and the value.
I don't know if--I don't want to misspeak, but I don't
believe that President Karzai of Afghanistan has a U.S.
citizenship, but I believe he has a dual citizenship, and I
believe that he was trained in Western universities; it might
have been European universities. But how beneficial has it been
for Chairman Karzai, now President Karzai of Afghanistan--I
happen to chair the Afghan caucus--to have that kind of
connectedness, if you will, to Western values?
Maybe I should say democratic principles because I wouldn't
want to taint his leadership, and he is certainly independent.
But he brings a whole lot to the leadership of Afghanistan with
the understanding that he has the multiple cultures, so if you
can expand on that, if I can ask the two gentlemen to give me
some sense.
As I say that to you, let me say this: Someone might
comment--and I didn't hear your first comment; I'm putting out
fires--but I'm not sure if you responded to the issue of
undocumented parents and citizenship children. If you did,
would you repeat it for me when you answer? It will give me
some sense of your perspective on that.
I'll just say to you gentlemen on this hearing, I start out
by saying that I appreciate regular order, but what I would say
to you is that I'm lacking in understanding how this makes us
secure.
Is this just we want to turn the clock back? We are a
nation that has immigrants here and welcomes immigrants in a
legal process, so I don't know how you can turn the clock back.
I see nothing in your conversation that provides any sense of
security or the elimination of terrorists, since Americans can
be terrorists who are born of American parents.
I yield to both of you for the answer originally about
what's the crisis.
Mr. Renshon. First, may I start by taking exception to your
characterization of not liking immigrants. At least for me,
nothing could be further from the truth.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You have the right. It's a free country.
Your presentation gives me the impression.
Mr. Renshon. It's an erroneous impression.
Secondly, it seems to me--let me get to the question of
identification. Psychologically, an identification with a
country, a national identification, allows people to weather
the storms that they go through; it allows support for the
country during hard times. It's in a sense like an emotional
bank account which isn't related to a quid pro quo of what can
you do for me lately. No government and especially no
democratic government can survive solely on what it gives with
regard to goodies.
With regard to the concrete form of identification, there
are studies that are now coming out of the attachments of
immigrants; there are studies done of immigrant children, the
so-called 1.5 generation, second generations, and among those
questions the question is asked, how they identify. Do they
identify as an American, do they identify as a hyphenated
American, do they identify as a Mexican or an El Salvadoran or
do they identify as Hispanic?
Traditionally what has happened is that over time people
have left behind their identification with their country of
origin and adopted a hyphenated American identity. And it has
gone so far in some cases--I am referring now to a study by
Richard Alba, who's at the State University of New York, who
studied European ethnic Americans; and what he found is that
essentially, for all practical purposes, there's a European
identify which is essentially American. Yes, they're Italian
and they eat Italian food, and yes, they're Polish and they may
have a sausage, but primarily they identify almost 100 percent
or 98 percent as Americans. I don't think the same thing can be
said empirically of the new generation of Americans that are
coming in from abroad.
A very large percentage of the children of immigrants, the
1.5 generation, and even the second generation identify with a
title which does not have ``American'' in it. And that to me--
are they running out and throwing bombs? Well, no, that is not
the issue that I am dealing with. I am suggesting that over
time the lack of attachment to our national culture will be a
severe strain on our civic process and on our civic identity.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, Dr. Fonte, you and Mr.
Spiro will be able to respond to questions from the Ranking
Member.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his indulgence.
Mr. Fonte. On the first, I want to reiterate what Stan
said. I think the whole purpose of what we are saying is
precisely because we are a Nation of immigrants, it was
precisely because we do want to assimilate immigrants
patriotically into the American system that we favor continuing
the American tradition. My father was an immigrant from Sicily
and so I am very fond of immigrants. And it is because we are a
Nation of immigrants that we want to continue this great
tradition of patriotic assimilation. It is precisely because we
are a multiethnic, multi-subcultural Nation of people from all
over the world that loyalty to the United States should be
paramount and that people shouldn't maintain loyalty to another
country. If we were purely an ethnic Nation like some other
nations it would not make that much difference, but it is
because we are a multiethnic Nation specifically that we want
to continue our great tradition.
This is the position of the American Legion, the position
of patriotic assimilation, that people who come here should be
loyal to the United States and not loyal to any other nations.
What problems arise is, as Professor Renshon said, if you
have large numbers of people in the country whose primary
loyalty is not to the United States, that is a problem for any
democratic country.
I did want to mention that my comment on complete and
unwavering loyalty was a quote from Felix Frankfurter and I
will stick with Felix Frankfurter and I will stick with the
policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt on this anytime.
Thank you.
Mr. Spiro. I still did not hear an answer where there were
concrete problems with dual citizenship. I think there is an
assumption, particularly in Stan Renshon's remarks, that
individuals' attachments are a zero sum quantity. I think he
just used the term ``emotional bank account'' as if there were
some set limit to our emotional attachments and that
attachments to one form of association necessarily detract from
attachments to another form.
Now there are contexts involving conflicting belief systems
where that is a problem. It is hard to be a Muslim and a Jew at
the same time, and that used to be the case I believe with
national attachments. In a world where one had the United
States alone as a system of constitutional democracy in a world
of monarchists and other non-democratic systems that was a
problem. So that when John Fonte's grandfather came here it
would have been difficult to remain loyal to both--I guess it
was the Kingdom of Sicily at time--
Mr. Fonte. No, the Kingdom of Italy.
Mr. Spiro. Italy and the United States at the same time.
Today, of course, democracy is pervasive so that problem of
conflicting belief systems and conflicting systems of politics
is no longer a problem, so that one can be a loyal Italian and
a loyal American at the same time.
Briefly on Ms. Jackson Lee's question about the example of
Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan; American citizens have been crucial
in facilitating transitions to democracies in new democratic
countries. So that as Dr. Renshon includes in his paper, there
are a long list of Americans who played critical roles in
transition to democracy in Eastern Europe in high government
positions, including as President of Lithuania. And even Dr.
Renshon I believe has no objection to that activity on the part
of dual American citizens. So that is a very concrete example
of how dual citizenship has served our national interest in
other systems.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Eastman, let me
address my first series of questions to you.
I gather from your comments that you feel getting to what
you or I might consider to be the correct interpretation of the
citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, that that can be done
by Federal statute and does not necessarily require a
constitutional amendment. Is that accurate?
Mr. Eastman. It is, Representative Smith.
Mr. Smith. Of course, we know that a statute might be
challenged but at least that holds some promise, I would guess.
Mr. Eastman. In fact, I don't even think you need a new
statute. The existing one tracks the language of the 14th
amendment precisely. That person is born in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. You could have a
resolution describing what you understand that to mean.
Mr. Smith. That was my next question. If you don't need a
statute what are the alternatives? One would be a resolution.
That raises other questions that I hadn't thought about until
today. Do you think the prospect of the correct interpretation
would be enhanced or could be enhanced by an Executive Order?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I do. And in fact I think it would have
been preferable in the Hamdi case itself had the Solicitor
General not waited until the Supreme Court to challenge or to
use the language of presumed citizen but in fact had addressed
that question right back at the initial transfer from
Guantanamo to Norfolk. The mere fact that Hamdi was born in
Louisiana, even under the strict holding of Won Kim Ark doesn't
mean he is a citizen. His parents were not here as permanent
residents and that would be enough to distinguish that case.
Mr. Smith. So we have Executive Order, we have Solicitor
General opinion perhaps. Statute, resolution, we have other
alternatives to underline what Congress' intent is, which we
all know is probably determinative in this case.
My next question goes to what do you think the practical
impact of the current interpretation of the 14th amendment is?
Do you think that increases illegal immigration? Does that act
as a magnet for some individuals to come into the country? As I
believe, but I wanted to hear your opinion.
Mr. Eastman. I believe it is. I think there are many
incentives right now that we provide for illegal immigration
and this is a very important one. It not only provides this
grant of citizenship to the first generation born here, but as
Chairman Hostettler pointed out in his opening remarks, those
citizens can turn around and have priority status for bringing
in their parents and other relatives as citizens. It is a
shortcut around the naturalization process that Congress has
set up under its plenary power.
Mr. Smith. That is what I think as well. As I pointed out,
over half the births in Los Angeles now are to illegal alien
parents, that says something itself, I would suspect. Another
question is why do you think there is a trend around the world
toward requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal
immigrant in almost any civilized country before the child
would be automatically deemed to be a citizen?
Mr. Eastman. I think, you know, at points during the last
century we adopted this idealistic view that war was over, that
we had had a couple of wars to end all wars. It never seemed to
work. But recently the spate of activity and the conflicts,
terrorism and what have you, have demonstrated the real serious
threat that comes from not keeping control over citizenship. A
number of nations in Europe, for example, are dealing with this
question with mass migrations and the notion that you cannot
control that as a naturalization policy because people have
automatic unilateral claims of citizenship undermines the
notion of consent that is at the heart of any political
community. And as those political communities start to fray at
the edges with these unilateral rather than bilateral claims it
is going to have an impact.
Mr. Smith. I agree with you. Thank you, Dr. Eastman. Let me
say that two of our witnesses a few minutes ago referred
directly or alluded to the relatively well-known quote by Teddy
Roosevelt along the lines that we shouldn't be considering
ourselves hyphenated Americans, we should all be considering
ourselves as Americans. I hope we get to the point in our
country that we do consider ourselves as Americans first, not
hyphenated Americans first. I think that will do a lot for our
national unity and our sense of oneness that we look for in our
country and our society today. I hope we get there some day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all for your
participation today.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman from Texas. At this
point I would like to go to a second round of questions, if I
have the indulgence of the members of the panel. Is everyone
available for another 10 to 15 minutes? Thank you.
Dr. Fonte, is it possible for Congress to take action short
of revoking citizenship to curtail dual allegiance in
situations where dual allegiance is not in our national
interest?
Mr. Fonte. Absolutely. In fact in the Perez case, there is
a famous dissent by Earl Warren who was on the other side who
supported the idea that Congress could not voluntary take--did
not have the power to take someone's citizenship away but he
did say that Congress had the power to enact legislation if it
deemed something particularly harmful. That is why it is in the
power of the Congress.
In fact Congressman Hayworth has introduced a bill today
that would penalize--the enforcement first legislation--it
would penalize people who perform these certain acts that used
to be expatriating, such as voting in a foreign election,
serving in a foreign army, and so on. This is totally within
the plenary power of Congress to do this, to pass this type of
legislation.
I also might want to point out that in the legislation,
exemptions could be made for national security reasons. So if
there is somebody who is the President of Lithuania and is an
American citizen and for some particular reason the State
Department wants this, there is the exemption within the
Hayworth legislation for this. It is entirely within the power
of Congress to act.
I would add if Congress does not act, then dual citizenship
and dual allegiance are simply going to multiply. So it is
almost, at this point particularly when we are discussing the
McCain-Kennedy and various immigration bills, it is important
for Congress to act now at this particular time, or there will
be a major increase in dual allegiance if nothing is done.
Mr. Hostettler. So because we make no penalties, even if we
deem that it is not in our national interest to allow these
benefits to inure, that is a big reason why the explosion has
taken place potentially, not necessarily as a result of a new
wave of a new line of thinking but simply because it is easy to
do and there is no penalty?
Mr. Fonte. Partly I think that is correct, if we make the
rules very clear. We don't want you voting in a foreign
election, we don't want you serving in a foreign army and there
are penalties, people will stop doing it and dual allegiance
will become a moot point and a lot of problems that we have
will be eliminated.
People were saying what is the specific problem? Well, we
do have the case of Manuel de la Cruz, who was an American
citizen, dual citizen. He was elected to the legislature of
Zacatecas on the PRD Party. They have a picture of Lenin here.
They are advocating an anti-American line. He is working
against American interests. There are others doing the same
thing.
That is to answer a previous question of what is some
specific harm, but the important thing is that now is the time
for Congress to do something about this as we are having this
immigration debate. We are going to have millions of new
citizens and should they be as always in the past patriotically
assimilated and only be loyal to the United States, or should
they have divided loyalties? That is something that Congress
will have to decide this year.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Dr. Renshon, you bring up a lot
of interesting points regarding the psychology of the issue,
and something I thought of while you were speaking was the
notion that in the past, while American citizens may have
disagreed with their country, their government, on a particular
issue, it was not such that they would actually be in favor of
the position of another country or take that position or work
toward the goals and ends or the desires of a foreign state,
but they would simply disagree.
But if what you are saying is true about the psychology of
the situation, we may be seeing a phenomenon take place today
where in fact it is that if we disagree with the United States,
and we have dual nationality, that we in fact can choose what
policy, what philosophy, and actually work against the will,
the national interests of the United States in favor of the
national interests of a foreign power. Is that not true?
Mr. Renshon. I think that is fair to say. Look, it is a
natural inclination when you have attachments to somebody, to
begin their point of view, to give their point of view a little
bit more on the scale and so forth. So it is entirely
psychologically natural. It is natural for people coming from
other countries to begin their process here by doing that.
I am talking about the socialization over generations of
multi-millions. I estimate there are at least 30 to 40 million
dual citizens in the United States, people who can be dual
citizens, and it is rising. And so we have never had a
situation where we have had in absolute numbers so many people
with multiple attachments.
If I may just correct Professor Spiro, my friend and
debating partner in many instances, I don't think it is a zero
sum game. I don't think you are 100 percent American or not an
American. I think that over time people are oriented toward the
United States as a nationality and it is just a fact of
psychological life that people have attachments elsewhere,
especially when they are primary. It is not like being a trade-
off between being a professor and a father, these are
fundamental orientations. And I am not a big believer just in
the fact that because democracy is spreading we're therefore in
good shape. Consider Russia as a democracy. France has a
democracy. Would we like our citizens to be more French? I
don't know. Personally I don't think that is true.
So it is a real problem. May I take a moment and speak to
another issue that is related?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, for an additional minute
if you make it brief.
Mr. Renshon. I will. We're also in a situation where
schools are not really socializing students to become American.
The level of information about what America stands for, what it
is like, its history is by every measure abysmal. And the
consequence of that is that when you ask of citizens that they
take care of the country, that they have a balanced
appreciation of the country, in order to have appreciation you
have to have knowledge of both the virtues and the faults. That
is how you have appreciation. If you don't have any knowledge
of the values and you only have some idea of their faults,
there is no reservoir to fall back on.
And so we are bringing people in through our system who are
not being prepared emotionally to have the kind of attachment
we might like to see. And I am all for the way--by the way, I
am all for dual citizenship and having people who are dual
citizens go be the president of a country. But what I object to
is they are dual citizens and exercise their citizen
responsibilities in two places. They come here and are trained
in America and go to Lithuania or Bosnia, fine. That is
perfectly fine with me. What I don't want are tens of thousands
or hundreds of thousands of people from country X doing both at
the same time.
Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. At this point I recognize the
gentlewoman from Texas for purposes of questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Professor Spiro, let's do a little bit of
sparring here and take on some valid issues that have been
raised. Frankly, let me say to Dr. Fonte, you have my 100
percent enthusiastic support about Americans knowing about
America, knowing about our history, understanding our values.
And I believe our school curriculums fall short in the primary
years and secondary years in the knowledge of American history.
That is shame on us. I would rather be listening to a hearing
that, though it might be out of our jurisdiction, to reorder
the entire curriculum to make people both invested in our
history and committed to our history and very well versed in
it.
But let's respond to again my singular question. I am still
grappling with the concreteness of emotionalism and loyalty. So
let's look at, if I might--I think this is Justice Felix
Frankfurter's words: No man should be permitted deliberately to
place himself in a position where his services may be claimed
by more than one government and his allegiance is due to more
than one.
In the backdrop obviously this was the beginnings of the
early migration, the movement of a number of European
countries--citizens over to the United States and maybe there
was concreteness then. We were still a young country if you
will. It was around, if my history is correct, emerging World
War I and other conflicts. But let's just try to focus what
we're trying to get at.
I am looking at a legislation that was dropped just today
and we have got penalties of up to $10,000, imprisonment for 1
year for individuals who may vote in the election of a foreign
state of which persons were previously a subject of, running
for elected office in a foreign state in which a person was
previously a subject of. I guess we would haul out of office
the President of Lithuania, as you have mentioned, and put that
person in jail.
Give me a concrete response to their lack of concreteness
without any disrespect to the arguments that they have made. I
am still grappling with what is the issue.
And I guess let me finish on this point. I was troubled by
the fact that in testimony that was rendered here, I believe
Mr. Renshon's response--one of the responses--let me try to be
clear--that said, well, we don't have a problem with those who
are of the European vintage, except for the comment about our
friends in France, but it is the new immigrants maybe from
India, maybe from Mexico, Latin American countries, maybe from
Africa. I take offense to that, and the reason why I take
offense from that is because I have buried soldiers who are of
that heritage who would knock down others to go and fight for
their country. I think we could take a poll or census of
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and we would find high numbers
of individuals who may not be dual citizenship but heritages
come from those particular countries. So I take offense with
the suggestion.
Help me out with a concrete response to what I believe has
not been concrete. Is there a danger? What danger are we
facing? Because let's fix the danger. And is it warranted to
have people placed in jail for some of the offenses that I just
said to you in the legislation that was dropped today dealing
with dual citizenship?
Mr. Spiro. I think you are absolutely correct to put the
statements of somebody like Felix Frankfurter into historical
context. So that at the time that Frankfurter was writing his
opinion in the Perez case, which John Fonte referred to, that
may have been an appropriate perspective on dual citizenship.
At that time it may have posed a threat to the national
interests of the United States. It may have been a question of
conflicting belief systems and it may have posed the danger of
embroiling the United States in international controversies to
allow American citizens to participate politically in other
countries.
That is no longer the case today. In Dr. Fonte's written
statement there are these fascinating parallels between the
position of the Mexican government to its communities in the
United States today and the position of the Italian government
to its community in the 1930's in America. Interesting
parallels but those are completely different worlds. We ended
up in a war with Italy in a matter of years and that obviously
is not going to happen with Mexico today.
I think it would be a terrible idea to impose criminal
penalties on the exercise of dual citizenship and I think John
is a little too sanguine to believe that everybody would lie
down and obey the law. You would end up with prosecutions which
I think would show the foolhardiness of such legislation.
So, again I'm not sure what the problem is. At the same
time that I see real benefits from an individual perspective
and also from a national perspective----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I might, do you see any danger? Do you
see us being set up, if you will, for the numbers of terrorists
roaming through with dual citizenship? Obviously, you are not
an expert on terrorism, but I welcome your thoughts on this.
Mr. Spiro. It is absolutely not a security issue, and
anybody who is thinking about undertaking a terrorist act in
this country would be foolish to advertise the alternate
allegiance. There is not a single prominent historical case of
a dual citizen undertaking acts of espionage or terrorism
against the United States.
One last point, Dr. Renshon notes there may be as many as
40 million dual citizens in the United States today. By way of
concrete problems we have heard maybe three or four individual
cases out of those 40 million that might arguably pose some
issue of loyalty or allegiance.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlewoman. At this time we
will move to a third round of questions if you have that time
available to you. There are a couple of us and this is a very
interesting subject. I would like to at this point recognize
Dr. Fonte, who is pregnant with thought with regard to the last
response.
Mr. Fonte. Yes. I was--Peter was saying the situation was
different in 1958 with Frankfurter and that we don't have those
type of conflicts today. With the end of the Cold War we don't
have those type of conflicts. Well, remember 9/11. Today we
have more conflicts than ever. Questions of loyalty, conflicts
not only between States but within States in the post-9/11
world. Questions of loyalty, of allegiance, of what one
believes are absolutely paramount, and we have more conflict
than we have ever had. So we have more potential for conflicts
and questions of dual allegiance than ever in the past.
And I want to reiterate, the legislation we're discussing,
which is the J.D. Hayworth legislation, specifically says that
exemptions can be made if this serves the interests--the
national security interests of the United States are served if
someone takes a seat in the Mexican government or the
government in Nigeria or the government in Finland or any place
else. If it serves the national security interests of the
United States, exemptions could be made. So this is not simply
rounding up President Karzai and throwing him in jail. But
those are the two main points that I wanted to answer.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Dr. Fonte, once again it is
often said that we are a Nation of immigrants. This being said,
how does dual citizenship negatively impact our unique Nation,
one that is built on political loyalty rather than on race,
ethnicity, or creed? And to follow on that, do you have
information that, in fact, dual citizens'--by and large the
preponderance of their political activity in other countries
are in the national interests of the United States or is it in
the national interests of the foreign country? Is their
political activity in the United States more to the benefit of
the United States or foreign country?
Mr. Fonte. Well, the second question first. I don't know if
we have any concrete data. That would be extremely interesting.
It would cost some money, but a survey of the views of, say,
Mexican dual citizens participating in governments, in Mexican
politics and people in Mexico. Because many of the participants
in California are members of the PRD, which is the anti-
American party. Others are also of course in President Fox's
pro-American party. There are differences. I don't know of any
survey data but it is clear there are people on both sides of
the fence. But in either case the emphasis is the attachment
and the time and the emotion is toward the foreign state and
not toward the United States.
And that is where your first question was as a Nation of
immigrants. I think we are a Nation of immigrants, but we are a
Nation of assimilated immigrants. We're not really a Nation of
immigrants; we're a Nation of assimilated immigrants with
loyalty to the United States.
Now if we were all of one ethnic group, say all of Anglo
descent, then everybody would know who an American was. If your
were blond, blue eyes, you're an Anglo, you're an American.
That is not the case. To be an American is to be loyal to the
American political constitutional order. So we are a civic
Nation, a Nation that is held together by civic bonds, not by
ethnic bonds.
As I mentioned in my written material, we had a war about
this in 1812 with the British, who believed once an Englishman
always an Englishman. They had an ethnic basis for citizenship.
Germany had an ethnic basis for citizenship. You were a member
of Das Folk, you were a member of the German people. You were a
German citizen. Even if you were living in Argentina for 200
years and only spoke Spanish, spoke no German, had no
connection with German culture, could read not a word of
German, you would still be considered under the old German
immigration system a citizen of Germany. That was a pure ethnic
Nation.
I say in my paper, I am worried that the Mexican government
is adopting the ethnic view, once a Mexican always a Mexican.
To the seventh generation is what Hernandez said, and Mussolini
also said to the seventh generation. That was the reference of
the comparison.
This is ethnic citizenship. People saying you are of this
race and you have to stay this race and you have to stay with
our country. That is not the way we do things in America. If we
accept dual allegiance, we will be heading in that direction.
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Texas for purposes of questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I was just meeting
with the national PTA Association who were telling me that they
were very actively engaged in accepting children that were
evacuated from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Professor
Spiro, you recall there was a debate about refugees versus
evacuees, and it brings to mind that labeling people sometimes
doesn't generate positive discussion.
So I want to raise with Dr. Fonte, I want to bring
attention to you, again I bring up the danger and the
concreteness and maybe I missed it.
Does the presentation that both--the three of you make also
include denying the citizenship of children born of
undocumented aliens, individuals here in this country? Is that
correct, Dr. Renshon?
Mr. Renshon. I haven't addressed that at all.
Mr. Eastman. I have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Dr. Eastman. Then let me go to
you for concreteness. Many of us who come from a certain region
are probably more apt to be interfacing with that population
than not, and what I have seen is a very strong attempt of
assimilation that has constantly been the history of this
country, either by precedent and/or subsequently by statute,
that if you are born in the United States you are a citizen. As
I indicated in my opening remarks, for a long period of time we
had nothing. So give me succinctly the danger of stigmatizing
individuals who are born under the flag of the United States of
America.
Now, let me acknowledge that we have, again as I said, a
broken immigration system which may lead people to believe that
there is a purposeful effort of making sure children are born
here in the United States. But putting that aside, what is the
danger of giving to citizens their birthright of being born on
this soil?
And Professor Spiro, tell me how do you respond to Dr.
Eastman once he makes this comment? I'm really trying to find
the legislative response, if necessary, to the danger or the
undermining of this country. I think that is why we're here,
what are we here for. There must be some danger. There must be
some threat to the existence of America. Dr. Eastman, what is
it?
Mr. Eastman. Representative Jackson Lee, I am happy to
address that. I think there are two levels of threat, one very
specific but one more global and principled. And the notion of
birthright citizenship, by being born on the soil I become a
subject of the country in which I am born, is a throwback to an
old feudal order, that we are the king's subjects or we are the
government's subjects, and that was repudiated in our own
Declaration of Independence. We set up governments based on
consent. It is a bilateral consent. You can't come here and
claim citizenship without us agreeing to it, nor can we make
you citizens if you don't want it. It is bilateral consent.
This notion of consent that we have in the political regime is
critical to our understanding of our regime of being one of
civic duty, rights and obligations and not one of ethnic
definition. And that, I think, is rather critical.
What you are talking about is an entire class of people
that have not been involved in that consent relationship, but
have nevertheless through their parents come here and claimed
something that we have not agreed to. That is kind of--and over
time that radical change in our understanding of our own
political system cannot but help to undermine the strength of
that system.
More specifically, in southern California we have a huge
problem, and I suspect you have it in Texas as well, people who
have dual nationality committing crimes, preying on illegal
immigrant communities, which is a terrible thing, and then
fleeing the jurisdiction to Mexico in order to avoid
prosecution. And because they are Mexican citizens they will
not be extradited here. It creates an opportunity to commit
heinous crimes, cop killing crimes or preying on our immigrant
communities, crimes with impunity, and it is made possible
because of this notion of dual citizenship. I think that is a
very particularized harm, if that is what you are looking for.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Professor Spiro, can you help me with
that, please?
Mr. Spiro. Three brief points on the question of birthright
citizenship. One is that although Professor Eastman is correct
that the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the subject,
I think it is quite clear that the rule of birthright
citizenship is constitutionally entrenched. I think a good
piece of evidence of this is the Hamdi case itself, that
notwithstanding Hamdi's tenuous connection to the United States
as an on-the-ground matter, no one in the executive branch of
the Government, nor on the Supreme Court--notwithstanding
Professor Eastman's very able brief on the subject--got
anywhere close to suggesting that he should be deprived of his
citizenship as somebody born in the United States. So I think
that it is quite clear that as a matter of constitutional
practice it is entrenched as a rule.
The second point, and this is forgotten in some of the
discussion, is that many of these undocumented parents are very
real members of our community. They are not--the stereotype
here is of course is of the undocumented alien mother who
crosses the border simply to give birth to a child here to take
advantage of the birthright citizenship rule. In fact, many of
these undocumented mothers have been here for many years and
are part of the community and their children will be part of
the community. And if we abandon the rule of birthright
citizenship, one is talking about establishing an
intergenerational caste, a permanently dispossessed class of
individuals, which is really antithetical to our citizenship
norm of equality.
And finally this is maybe a point that also gets lost in
the discussion. If we move away from the birthright citizenship
rule, we're looking at an administrative disaster. Under the
current rule it is quite simple to determine if somebody is a
citizen of the United States. All you have to show is that the
person was born in the United States. Imagine a regime in which
every individual has to show the immigration status of their
parents by way of establishing their own right to citizenship.
Given that our immigration enforcement authorities are already
terribly overburdened, do we want to add yet another task to
their list of administrative responsibilities?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I just--Mr. Chairman, may I just--
would you follow up on--I don't think I was fully understanding
Dr. Eastman, though I recognize that California has its own
unique issues. But of preying on--I don't know whether you were
saying Hispanics, Latins, Mexicans preying on people and
running back to Mexico. I mean if it is an isolated local
criminal problem that I would join him in saying that we need
to give more resources to local police and law enforcement to
be able to arrest the criminals. Is he talking about that is
what we expect out of undocumented parents' children, that they
would be criminals and preying on people? Is that the broad
thrust of what is being said here today?
Mr. Spiro. I mean, I have to admit I'm not sure I took the
point either that either dual citizenship or birthright
citizenship--it would seem there is a tenuous connection
between that and any problems of crime and problems of crime
should be handled as problems of crime are handled, which is
through greater resources devoted to law enforcement and not
through citizenship rules.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to put this in
the record, but let me conclude by saying we are not a
Committee of jurisdiction dealing with treaties, but I would
think that--and I find difficulty with some of Mexico's
responses and other countries' responses when they harbor
criminals and I welcome some review of that issue as to how do
we get individuals extradited back who have perpetrated crimes.
I think our citizens in this United States are owed that kind
of respect and dignity.
But I don't think that the labeling ties in. And the reason
why I say so, unfortunately we had a statement being made this
morning by Bill Bennett, not particularly related, but I'm just
saying how we can get out of sorts with relating different
comments. And I don't know what kind of statement he was trying
to make, but he said: If you want to reduce crime, you could
abort every black baby in this country and the crime rate would
go down.
You know, these kinds of statements and statements that
suggest that these people are involved in crime are not
constructive. But it is constructive, Dr. Eastman, for me to be
able to work with you and talk about enforcing the extradition
laws to make sure that we don't have that kind of abuse. But I
don't see the relationship of this question of dual citizenship
and undocumented children.
So with that let me yield back and hope that we will find
some other ways of dealing with this question. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank the gentlewoman. The Chair wishes to
thank members of the panel, witnesses, for being here, for
adding to this very important discussion. And I remind the
Members of the Committee that all Members will have 5
legislative days to make additions to the record.
At this time, the business before the Subcommittee being
completed we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
The purpose of this hearing is to examine ``birthright
citizenship'' and ``dual citizenship.'' The framers of the Constitution
did not define ``citizenship.'' The acquisition of United States
citizenship by birth and by naturalization depended on state laws until
the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act
of 1790 established a definition for ``citizenship by naturalization,''
but it did not define ``citizenship by birth.''
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment,
African-Americans were not considered citizens of the United States. In
the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), the United
States Supreme Court held that African-Americans could not be citizens
of the United States, even if they were free. According to the Supreme
Court, African-Americans were descended from persons brought to the
United States as slaves, and the terms of the Constitution demonstrated
that slaves were not considered a class of persons included in the
political community as citizens.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that ``all persons born in
the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States.'' The Fourteenth Amendment declared that ``[a]ll persons born
or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside.''
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme
Court held that all persons born in the United States and subject to
its jurisdiction are citizens. The children of diplomats and the
children of hostile occupation forces were excluded because their
parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Wong
Kim Ark did not exclude the children of illegal aliens, and the basic
holding of this decision has never been reversed.
In recent Congresses, there have been various proposals aimed at
excluding the children of illegal aliens and nonimmigrant aliens from
automatic birthright citizenship. These proposals have taken the form
of amendments to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or
to the birthright provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA).
Other proposals would limit birthright citizenship in a way that
its proponents believe would not necessitate a constitutional
amendment. This approach would statutorily define who is born ``subject
to the jurisdiction'' of the United States under the Citizenship Clause
notwithstanding the holdings in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra.
I am opposed to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Among other
things, these proposals would, for the first time since Dred Scott,
create a class of persons who are born in American but are not
citizens.
Another subject of this hearing is ``dual citizenship.'' Dual
citizenship can arise in several ways. A person may acquire dual
citizenship by being born in the U.S., which recognizes jus soli, to
alien parents whose country recognizes jus sanguinis, or by being born
abroad to U.S. parents in a country that practices jus soli. A U.S.
citizen may become a naturalized citizen of a nation that does not
require renunciation of other allegiances, or a naturalized U.S.
citizen may still retain citizenship in a country that does not
recognize renunciation of its citizenship. In deference to the
sovereignty of that other nation, the U.S. generally recognizes the
dual citizenship.
Some people claim that dual citizenship is a problem because it
results in divided loyalties, particularly in the case of a military
conflict. It is difficult, however, to assess something as personal as
an individual's loyalties. Other people focus on conflicts regarding
jurisdictional issues, such as diplomatic protection, and legal duties
borne by individuals, such as military service. These may be serious
problems in some situations, but they can be managed through such means
as bilateral treaties. I am not convinced that there is a need to
restrict dual citizenship. Thank you.
Resolution No. 165 of the American Legion, submitted by Dr. John Fonte
Letter to Chairman Hostettler and National Review Article,
submitted by Dr. John Eastman
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jim Ryun, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas
Part of America's beauty comes from her unity in the midst of
diversity. We have been called a Nation of immigrants, but behind this
statement is the knowledge that we one-time immigrants have become
Americans. The Americanization process is central to creating the unity
that is so important as we wage the War on Terrorism.
As Tamar Jacoby, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, states,
``The stakes could hardly be higher. One in nine Americans is an
immigrant. Nearly one-fifth of U.S. residents speak a language other
than English at home. The number of foreign-born Americans--33 million
and growing--now exceeds the entire population of Canada. And in the
wake of 9/11, with the nation as a whole thinking harder than ever
before about what it means to be American, it couldn't be more
important to help these newcomers find a way to fit in.''
To successfully assimilate the millions of immigrants in the United
States, we must ensure their allegiance to our Founding documents and
principles and their desire to become Americans. For over 200 years, we
have used the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation as a gateway to
American citizenship.
The Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance is taken by all immigrants
as they become citizens, and it is an important pronouncement of
fidelity to America and her laws. In taking the Oath, immigrants are
reminded of the seriousness of becoming an American citizen and the
responsibilities that come with it.
It is problematic that this important pronouncement is not
specified by law. The Oath is merely a part of Federal regulations and
can be changed at the whim of Government bureaucracy. In fact, on
September 17, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) proposed changing the Oath's
language. The proposed changes would have transformed an absolute
commitment into a conditional statement, thereby weakening the Oath and
the meaning of American citizenship.
Because of public outcry, the proposed changes were never
implemented, but we should take steps to ensure that future changes
could only be made by Americans' elected officials.
During the last Congress, I introduced a bill to place the Oath
into law so that only Congress would have the authority to change its
language. Congress thought it important enough to adopt a similar
amendment in the FY05 DHS Appropriations bill that would restrict any
funds in the bill from being used to make changes to the Oath. This
amendment will expire October 1, 2005, as we begin the new Fiscal Year.
As a result, it is more important than ever to take renewed steps
to protect the Oath. This Congress, I have introduced two bills, H.R.
1804 and H.R. 2513, that would do just that. H.R. 1804 would simply
place the Oath in current law, giving it the same protections as the
Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. H.R. 2513 would do this,
as well as make amendments to the Oath, as proposed by CIS, to clarify
the currently awkward language while retaining the historical
significance and the five essential components of the Oath. The new
language has been approved by various historians and groups, including
the Citizenship Roundtable, an alliance of the American Legion and the
Hudson Institute and former Attorney General, Edwin Meese at The
Heritage Foundation.
Establishing the Oath of Allegiance as the law of the land would
remind all Americans-recent immigrants and life-long citizens alike--
that pursuing the American dream requires a full-time commitment to
citizenship. Our new citizens should not become what Thomas Paine once
called the ``summer soldier and the sunshine patriot'' that shrank from
the service of his country in times of crisis. The process of
assimilation begins with a clear understanding of what it means to be
an American, and no immigration reform can be complete without ensuring
that our immigrants are committed to becoming Americans.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Nathan Deal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Georgia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing to
address the critical issue of birthright citizenship. I am the original
sponsor of H.R. 698, the ``Citizenship Reform Act'' which aims to do
away with birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Specifically my legislation would deny citizenship at
birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not
citizens or permanent resident aliens. The bill grants citizenship to a
child born out of wedlock in the United States only if the mother is a
citizen or national of the United States or an alien who is lawfully
admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the
United States. To date my bill has 45 cosponsors and has received
widespread support from those groups serious about reforming our
nation's immigration laws.
As you know, any child born in the United States is granted
automatic American citizenship regardless of whether or not the baby's
parents are legal residents. This is a supposed ``right'' granted by
the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause which states that ``all
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.'' The original
intent of this clause was to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves
but has since become an attractive incentive for illegal immigrants.
Some have contended my legislation is insufficient to address the
birthright issue, as a restriction on citizenship would require a
Constitutional amendment. I do not agree with this assessment. As Dr.
John Eastman and numerous other outstanding legal minds have contended,
current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is not only
misguided but also has profound consequences for the democratic
character of our federal government. While the Supreme Court has
addressed the issue in passing, it has never squarely dealt with the
question of birthright citizenship as understood within the bounds of
the Fourteenth Amendment. In the very least, my legislation would force
such a decision--a decision which I firmly believe would be found in
our favor.
Beyond the legal arguments, it is important to understand the
financial consequences of our birthright citizenship policies. An
estimated 300,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants in this country
each year. As we all know, these children are automatically granted
citizenship. The cost of caring for these children is extremely high.
For labor and delivery alone, excluding c-section deliveries and any
pre- or post-natal care, the cost is between $1,500 and $1,800 per
child. Under current law the government is often left no choice but to
cover these costs. Despite the legal status of the baby's parents, the
baby is entitled to all benefits that U.S. citizenship entails,
including federal welfare benefits and the right to vote. When that
child turns 21, he or she will be able to sponsor his or her parents,
and other family members, to the United States under the family
reunification provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One
quickly comes to realize the costs to our social infrastructure of such
an ill-advised policy. It is my belief that in order to begin truly
reforming our immigration and citizenship laws, we must start from the
beginning by doing away with birthright citizenship.
I would again like to thank the Committee for this hearing and
strongly urge it to consider my bill, H.R. 698 as it moves forward on
this issue.
Article submitted by William Buchanan