Reproductive Agents: The Right-WingVilifcation o Immigrant Women’s Fertility
By Susana Sánchez
Editors’ Note:
January, 2011 has already proven a soberin transition into the new year and new decade.Continued political violence in Arizona, the state that entrenched discrimination aainst immirantsthrouh leislation last year, and a concerted eort across ourteen states to attack the birthriht citizen-ship uaranteed in the 14th Amendment leave many o us disheartened. Yet committed social justice ac-tivists and oranizations across many dierent movements are standin stron aainst these challenes. This month, PopDev oers two companion pieces illuminatin the political context o anti-immirantscapeoatin within the U.S., the rowin resistance to this politics o hate and exclusion, and the roadorward.
— Co-editors Katie McKay Bryson and Betsy Hartmann
In 1857, just 11 years beore the ratication o the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Courtdecided in
Dred Scott v. Sanord
that AricanAmericans could never become citizens.
2
Con-ress added the Citizenship Clause to the consti-tution to overrule the
Dred Scott
decision and toconstitutionally uarantee birthriht citizenship.In addition to rantin citizenship to AricanAmericans, the amendment also uaranteedcitizenship to the children o other immirantssuch as Chinese and Roma people who hadlon been victims o social prejudice and lealdiscrimination. It is or this reason that ElizabethWydra writes, “Fixin the conditions o birthrihtcitizenship in the Constitution—rather thanleavin them up to constant revision or debate—bets the inherent dinity o citizenship, whichshould not be ranted accordin to the politicsor prejudices o the day.”
3
Birthriht citizenship, or
jus soli
, is a constitutionalriht ranted in the Fourteenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution, which states, “All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereo, are citizens o the United States and o the state wherein theyreside.”
1
However, the privilee that many Ameri-cans take or ranted as a common value has notalways been a uarantee or all Americans.
NO. 69SPRINg
2011
A publication o the
Population and Development Program
CLPP
•
Hampshire College
•
Amherst, MA 01002413.559.5506
•
http://popdev.hampshire.eduOpinions expressed in this publication are those o the individual authors unless otherwise specifed.
Think. Act. Connect.
For people, environmentand justice.
DIFFERENTAkES
http://popdev.hampshire.edu
No. 69 • Spring 2011
The current “prejudices o the day” are motivatinleislators in ourteen states to work with the Immira-tion Reorm Law Institute (leal arm o the Federationor American Immiration Reorm, known as FAIR),
4
todeny birthriht citizenship to the children o undocu-mented immirants. In October 2010, Elise Foley romthe
Washington Independent
5
reported that a roup o state leislators in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho,Indiana, Michian, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, NewHampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utahare collaboratin with anti-immirant oranizations andcitizen activists workin on bills to challene the citizen-ship clause in the case o the children o undocumentedimmirants, children they sometimes reer to with thederoatory and dehumanizin epithet “anchor-babies.” The campain’s principal intent is not to accomplishtheir oal at the state level, but to utilize state bills tobrin the issue beore the Supreme Court, usin thesame avenues as riht-win eorts to decree ay mar-riae unconstitutional.Proponents o removin birthriht citizenship aruethat the clause’s reerence to “subject o jurisdiction”didn’t intend to ive citizenship rihts to people whohold alleiance to a country outside the US. Consti-tutional scholars disaree with their readin o lealhistory, however, and other activists and scholars haveconvincinly exposed the racial prejudices central to apolitical campain aimed primarily at viliyin the re-production o immirant women, who are or the mostpart women o color. The activists and leislators behind this eort believethat birthriht citizenship is a stron incentive or im-mirants to come to the U.S. unlawully. The roupsbehind this anti-immirant leislation don’t accept thatmost undocumented immirants mirate in search o work, riskin their lives in hopes o better opportuni-ties. Instead they believe, as does Tennessee State Rep.Curry Todd, that undocumented immirants “multiplylike rats.”
6
The Constitutional Argument
Constitutional scholar James Ho arues that FAIR’s inter-pretation o the constitution is historically wron, basedon his review o the leislative debate over SenatorJacob Howard’s (R-MI) proposed citizenship-related lan-uae chanes in 1866. Ho concludes that, “proponentsand opponents o birthriht citizenship alike consis-tently interpreted the [1866 Civil Rihts] Act, just as theydid the Fourteenth Amendment, to cover the childreno [undocumented] aliens.”
7
Ho adds, “Nothin in textor history suests that the draters intended to drawdistinctions between dierent cateories o aliens.”On the contrary, text and history conrm that theCitizenship Clause covers all persons who are subject toU.S. jurisdiction and laws, reardless o race or countryo oriin.
8
Ho arues that the Citizenship Clause uar-antees automatic citizenship to those born within the jurisdiction o the U.S. and does not require ‘alleiance’as a precondition or birthriht citizenship. By addinthe Citizenship Clause, Conress uaranteed citizenshipto
all persons
born in the United States. While anti-immi-rant advocates would have us believe their arumentsare based on constitutionality, in reality such campainsare motivated by racial prejudices and endered biases.
The Race and Gender Implications o Denying Birthright Citizenship:
Eric Ward rom the Center o New Community says,“While it would certainly be unair and inaccurate toeneralize all opponents o birthriht citizenship asracist, racially prejudiced attitudes amon the leader-ship o this movement are well documented.”
9
FAIR isone o the mobilizin oranizations he reers to. Forinstance, John Tanton, FAIR’s ounder, expressed hisxenophobia in a memo, “Latin onslauht,” written to hisFAIR colleaues: “Will the present majority peaceablyhand over its political power to a roup that is simplymore ertile, ... As whites see their power and controlover their lives declinin, will they simply o quietlyinto the niht?”
10
In 2007, the Southern Poverty LawCenter added FAIR to its list o hate roups, reectinthat it had received money rom the Pioneer Fund (aoundation established “to promote the racial stock o the oriinal colonists, nance studies o race and intel-lience, and oster policies o ‘racial betterment’” – inshort, a white supremacist political project).
11
Ward also cites other oranizations collaboratin on e-orts to remove birthriht citizenship rom the Constitu-tion whose racial prejudices are well documented. TheCouncil o Conservative Citizens, ormerly the WhiteCitizens Council, or instance, believes that the U.S. isa ‘European Country and that Americans are part o aEuropean People We thereore oppose the massive im-miration o non-European and non-Western people inthe United States that threaten to transorm our nationinto a non-European majority in our lietime.’
12
Another layer o this anti-immirant eort is its enderedattack on immirant women as ‘reproductive aents.’Priscilla Huan, ormerly o the National Asian Pacic
2
DIFFERENTAkES
http://popdev.hampshire.edu
No. 69 • Spring 2011
3
American Women’s Forum, in the
Harvard Law and Policy Review
says the “underlyin nativism o the immirationcontrol movement and its eort to limit the reproductivecapacities o immirant women o color”
13
expose its truemotives. She explains that, “immiration restriction pro-ponents have been larely silent about the practical andleal consequences o creatin a class o U.S.-born ‘alien’children. Creatin a classication that would apply only tothe osprin o immirant women, the majority o whomare women o color, raises questions about whethercitizenship status will soon become a proxy or nationaloriin and a vehicle or racial discrimination.”
14
Nicole M. guidotti-Hernández, an Associate Proessor o Women’s Studies at the University o Arizona, expandson Huan’s point in the context o specically Latinaimmirants:“Not only does the theory o the anchor babyrame the Latina body as ‘uncontrollable’ in itsreproduction, but it also criminalizes women orhavin children and, thereore, accessin socialservices. The implication is that all Latina womenare not citizens, have too many children, can’tcontrol their sex drives, have children to accessU.S. citizenship by proxy and are to blame or theovertaxin o the U.S. welare system. This couldnot be urther rom the truth.”
15
When anti-immirant roups advocate or denyinbirthriht citizenship to the children o undocumentedimmirants, not only are they misreadin leal prec-edent and U.S. history, they are also proposin a policythat attacks and polices the ertility o women o colorand aims to establish urther leal justication or racialdiscrimination. It is necessary to dismantle the apparentsimplicity o what anti-immirant roups call a policyto curtail undocumented immiration to understandthe racial roots and social consequences o removinbirthriht citizenship.
Will Changing the Constitution DeterUndocumented Immigration?
Anti-immirant activists arue that birthriht citizen-ship acts as an incentive to people weihin the risks o undocumented immiration. These activists arue thatthe U.S.-born children o these immirants can oertheir extended amily a pathway to reside in the U.S. bysponsorin their parents and other relatives or lealpermanent residence. Such alleations may sound pre-posterous to most undocumented parents, or anyoneamiliar with the immiration process o sponsorin arelative, particularly a parent, which is not as simple asanti-immirant activists want us to believe. In act, anyperson who has lived in the U.S. without documentsor more than one year is barred rom returnin to thecountry or a period o 10 years.
16
Parents who leallyentered the country may adjust their status throuhtheir children, but they have to wait until their child is21 years old and has a steady job beore the so-called“anchor-baby’” can sponsor them.
17
Not only do the anti-immirant activists behind thispolitical eort lack knowlede o the nuances o im-miration law, they also don’t seem to understand thatmost people immirate or economic reasons, and notto have U.S.-born children. Immirants come to work,and many people stay undocumented because there isvirtually no leal path or them to become U.S. citizens.Durin the course o their lives they may create amiliesand have children, just like many other people do. Theeect o a law removin the pathway to citizenship romthe children o a roup o people livin and workin inthe U.S. would be a reproductive control policy that es-sentially threatens immirants—who are larely peopleo color—not to reproduce.
The New Progressive Resistance
Proressives are not simply deendin aainst theseanti-immirant roups; immirant rihts oranizersand roups have been workin actively to unpack thenativist rhetoric o removin birthriht citizenship, andchallene the widespread politics o hate and exclusionit represents. Some activists believe that this disturbinleislative eort actually oers a crucial moment o op-portunity or reramin immiration politics in the U.S.. The United States cannot romanticize its colonialhistory by continuin to call itsel a country o im-mirants, or a country built by immirants, even as itcreates civil rihts tiers o citizens, rst class citizensand “U.S. born-aliens.” There is no evidence that theU.S. Conress intended to create citizenship cateoriesin its ratication o the Fourteenth Amendment: on thecontrary, the Citizenship Clause rants U.S. citizenshipto all persons born in the United States reardless o race or leal status. Creatin such cateories o condi-tional citizenship will allow current political biases todisproportionally aect women o color, and curtailtheir reproductive reedom. The Fourteenth Amend-ment presents this country with a leacy and a man-date to continue workin toward a more equitable andealitarian society. Let’s move orward in this leacy,not backwards.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Reproductive Agents: The Right-Wing Vilification of Immigrant Women's Fertility
DifferenTakes Issue #69, Spring 2011
2011 has already proven a sobering transition into the new year and new decade. Continued political violence in Arizona, the state that entrenched discrimination against immigrants through legislation last year, and… (More)
2011 has already proven a sobering transition into the new year and new decade. Continued political violence in Arizona, the state that entrenched discrimination against immigrants through legislation last year, and… (More)
381
Reads
0
Readcasts
381
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
