Can Texas Deny Birth Certificates to Immigrant Children
March 2, 2016Feature . Feature Img ArticleTexas may continue to deny birth certificates to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
On October 16, 2015, a Texas federal judge denied an Emergency Application for Temporary Injunction that would have forced Texas hospitals to issue birth certificates to children born in the U.S. to foreign parents, pending a decision in the federal case addressing this same issue. The case was filed in June 2015 by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Texas Civil Rights Project, and South Texas Civil Rights Project on behalf of seventeen undocumented mothers and their children suing the Texas Department of State Health Services.
The complaint alleges that the seventeen mothers are all citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, or Honduras residing illegally in Texas. The mothers gave birth to their children in Texas and requested official copies of their children’s birth certificates from the Department of State Health Services Vital Statistics Unit, the state agency charged with the responsibility “to collect, protect and provide access to vital records and vital records data to improve the health and well-being in Texas.” The Vital Statistics Unit requires identification from parents seeking copies of their children’s birth certificates, but refuses to accept as identification foreign passports lacking U.S. visas or matrículas. (Matrículas are identity cards that Mexican consulates issue to Mexican citizens who reside outside Mexico.) Matrículas or foreign passports without U.S. visas are often an undocumented individual’s only form of official identification for a variety of reasons: confiscation of other forms of identification by coyotes (smugglers) during the journey to the U.S. or by Border Patrol at the Southern Border, expiration of or ineligibility for voting cards, loss or theft.
Thus, without an acceptable form of identification, undocumented parents are unable to obtain copies of their children’s birth certificates. “(W)ithout birth certificates, (children of undocumented parents) could easily be excluded from the benefits of citizenship due to all born in this great state,” says Rebecca L. Robertson, Legal & Policy Director of the ACLU of Texas. These “benefits” include: obtaining child care, enrolling in school, travelling across borders, and proving a parental relationship. The seventeen undocumented mothers allege that without an official copy of their children’s birth certificates they are unable to enroll their children in school, Head Start, or daycare; renew their children’s Medicaid benefits; travel; baptize their children; or access an array of other social welfare programs afforded to them, such as SSI (Supplemental Security Income). Further, proving a parental relationship without a birth certificate becomes “difficult if not impossible.”
The scope of this practice likely extends beyond the seventeen families involved in the suit. With an estimated 1.7 million undocumented immigrants in Texas, the seventeen families likely represent just the tip of the iceberg. “There are many more families out there that haven’t gotten birth certificates for their children,” said Jennifer Harbury, an attorney with the legal aid agency and human rights activist. The complaint alleges that “hundreds, and possibly thousands, of parents from Mexico and Central America have recently been denied birth certificates for their Texas-born children.”
The issue before the court is not whether the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are in fact U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment clearly establishes birthright citizenship: “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.” However, in the wave of recent political debates surrounding immigration, the Constitutional principle of birthright citizenship creates policy questions about what to do with families that contain both children who are Americans and parents who lack authorization to live in the United States. Moreover, outside the courts, the very principle of birthright citizenship is being reevaluated.
The U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are often referred to as “anchor babies.” Although no official definition of the phrase exists, “anchor baby” is widely understood to refer to “a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.” Not surprisingly, some consider the phrase offensive because of the term’s dehumanizing implication of instrumentality, implying that undocumented women have children for their own selfish goals of citizenship, while citizens have children for non self-serving grounds. Notwithstanding the term’s controversy, presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush and Donald Trump have used the phrase. It should be noted that the immigration policies proposed by the two candidates to address the phenomenon of U.S.-born children to undocumented mothers were vastly different. While Trump called for an end to birthright citizenship entirely, Bush proposed stronger immigration enforcement to prevent women from coming the U.S. for the purpose of having their babies.
On the other end of the spectrum, Human Rights Watch claims that both international human rights treaties and also U.S. domestic case law affirm an international human right to family unity. In response, Human Rights Watch calls on Congress to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to restore hearings to weigh an immigrant’s connections to the U.S., especially their family relationships, in deciding whether someone should be deported.
The policy implications on revoking birthright citizenship or tightening or loosening immigration law are enormous given the vast number of families in the U.S. containing both citizens and noncitizens. The House of Representatives estimates that each year between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born to undocumented parents in the U.S.; this accounts for one out of every ten births nationwide. A 2006 survey revealed that 22% of documented immigrants deported by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) were parents of U.S. citizens. Beyond discrediting the notion that a U.S.-born child can serve as an “anchor” to prevent deportation, this statistic also raises the question of, what happens to the children when their undocumented parents are deported? Separating children from their parents often has adverse effect on the child’s mental health. Furthermore, older siblings often must step in to care for younger children when a parent is deported, limiting their own opportunities to succeed.
The debate over the phrase “anchor babies” and the pending case in Texas both call attention to the contentious public climate surrounding U.S. immigration policy. Furthermore, both highlight the impact immigration policies have, not just on individuals, but on entire families. The future of immigration policy is particularly unclear because it is not an issue that divides cleanly on party lines. What is clear is that millions of families stand to be affected by the future holding in Texas and any changes to current immigration law.
You may also like
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010