Vitter Injects Citizenship and Immigration Into Human Trafficking Bill

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

Interesting developments today concerning a bill in Congress that would take funds seized from human traffickers and provide those funds to the victims of human trafficking. It’s called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), and it has bi-partisan support. Or rather, had bi-partisan support. All of the good will that’s moved the legislation forward has come to a partisan chasm. Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) has thrown immigration and citizenship into the mix. He’s offered an amendment (saying it’s an offer makes it sound so genteel … ) that, according to a First Focus Campaign for Children press release, would “deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the United States, if the baby’s parents are both undocumented immigrants or lawfully-admitted nonimmigrants.”

Here’s a quote from the release:

Washington – United States Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) today offered an amendment that would deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the United States, if the baby’s parents are both undocumented immigrants or lawfully-admitted nonimmigrants. The proposal would leave many such children stateless, because denying babies U.S. citizenship in no way confers upon them citizenship in the country of their parents’ origin. Senator Vitter’s proposal would also dramatically increase paperwork burdens for all U.S. citizens and agencies at every level of government. For example, The United States State Department currently accepts certified birth certificates as evidence of U.S. citizenship, but under the Vitter proposal, every passport applicant would also be required to document the citizenship status of his or her parents.

Responding to the proposal, the bipartisan children’s advocacy organization First Focus Campaign for Children released the following statement from its president, Bruce Lesley:

“This amendment targets children. It’s as wrongheaded as it is cold-hearted. The irony here is that the underlying bill aims to protect children from exploitation, but the Vitter amendment would drive children into the shadows, where they’re easier targets.”

This isn’t the first time that Vitter brings his limits-to-citizenship idea forward. In 2013 he and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013. The bill was referred to a subcommittee more than two years ago. Maybe that’s what’s made Vitter ansty and prompted him to add an amendment to a bill that has bi-partisan approval.

The birthright idea has constitutional implications. Many scholars believe that birthright citizenship is guarantteed in the 14th amendment, others think it’s not. Birthright Citizenship legislation is seen as a way to circumvent the constitution (that’s a tricky legal line they’re following).

But Vitter’s betting that recent reports about maternity hotels and maternity tourism will help his amendment. Federal officials raided 20 suspected maternity hotels in California that foreign women (mostly from China) allegedly use to give birth to their babies on U.S. soil, thus grating the child U.S. citizenship.

It should also be noted that the Justice for Victims bill contains language that restricts federal funding for abortion clinics and could force underage rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term. Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee say they weren’t aware of the language and add that the bill won’t “leave the floor” with that language included.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial about birthright citiznship in October of last year. It’s a well-rounded backgrounder, and worth the read.