Birthright could be next major battle in human trafficking bill

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

The big news today in Washington is that the Senate’s human trafficking bill will begin to inch forward, paving the way for a vote on President Obama’s attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch. Lynch’s nomination was put on hold after Senate Democrats objected to language in the trafficking bill that banned abortion funding, and demanded the language be removed. Senate Republicans countered by refusing to bring Lynch’s confirmation to the floor unless the Democrats agreed to the language – and that was the stalemate that ended today.

The Senators have agreed to exclude all funding of healthcare in the bill, the victims of human trafficking can acces health care under another program that is already subject to the abortion restriction.

That doesn’t mean the problems are over

Now that the block is out-of-the-way, the Senate will begin working through the trafficking bill’s other amendments with the goal of a final vote. But, there is one proposed amendment that could derail the vote again, and it has to do with birthright citizenship.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter has proposed an amendment that “would bar automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to people who are not U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens.” Vitter’s proposed amendment is a direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause:

“… all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and, subject to the jurisdiction therefore, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Anchor babies, again

Vitter’s problem with the Constitution is the old anchor-baby idea, coupled with what the Senator calls “birth tourism” – the practice of travel to the U.S. with the sole purpose of giving birth.  Vitter claims that birth tourism can be defined as human trafficking and puts women at risk of abuse. And he works around the constitutional issue by nit-picking the specific wording. He claims the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” gives Congress the authority to interpret the meaning of the citizenship clause.

Vitter tried unsuccessfully to pass a birthright citizenship law several years ago. Critics of the proposed amendment say they’re backed by the law – you can’t amend the Constitution by a statute. Vitter told the Times-Picayune:

“There is a whole industry, an underworld, that is selling so-called birth tourism. This acts as a magnet — a potent, powerful magnet growing in power by the year to lure more and more folks to come across the border in specific cases to have their babies here, 300,000 to 400,000 per year.”

To which Sen. Bob Menedez (D-NJ) countered that Vitter’s amendment would create a permanent underclass:

“This new permanent underclass would inevitably lead to some without any citizenship in any country; in other words, they would be stateless,” Menendez said. “This new underclass would be subject to the worst forms of exploitation, including, for some, becoming victims of human trafficking themselves. But the irony doesn’t stop there. For the party of limited government and low taxes, my friend from Louisiana proposes an amendment that would put the Department of Homeland Security in every delivery room and require the creation of a brand new, extensive bureaucracy with burdensome procedures.”

This should make for a very interesting week to come.