Posted on 09/16/2004 10:07:09 AM PDT by Willie Green
The United States has added 50 million legal and illegal immigrants since 1970, many of whom now want their families to rejoin them. Call it the "immigration echo."
Some of these migrant aliens came here as refugees, others by sneaking across our borders. Others are "anchor babies," children born in the United States to immigrant mothers. That makes them automatic citizens even if the mothers are not here legally.
Often, however, instead of minor children, it is aged parents who follow into this country. Some immediately go on the welfare roles. Also, huge broods of immigrant kids go to our schools. Their parents, largely uneducated, take entry-level jobs from our poorest, least-employable citizens while gladly using public services.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
ping
They form the DIMOCRAPTIC PARTY voter base. You did not know that?
Thank you Ted Kennedy and your 1965 immigration reform law
Time once again to point out that the 14th Amendment does NOT mean what the the government purports it to mean.
The prohibition of "anchor babies" as citizens is in the US Constitution, as written. The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
ping
BTTT.
bttt
I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with that today. You, me and 200 million other Americans do but we don't count.
The point is, what does the Amendment say and what was its intent when written, passed, and ratified. If that is the case made before the SCOTUS, they would have to admit to directly contradicting the Constitution.
Such the reason the people of the United States of America must demand our government place an end to any/all dual-citizenship with mandatory irreversible and permanent loss of US citizenship for those who fail to do so.
We need provisions that only a parent or legal guardian of a minor may apply for social services or other taxpayer-funded benefits and that only citizens of these United States may apply on the recipient's behalf specifying any sponsor citizen must have verifiable contributions to SSI trusts for a minimum twenty quarters before they may sponsor anyone.
We should couple that with the barring of both the sponsor and recipient from all public funded means-tested benefits for a minimum twenty quarters from the dates of sponsorship, and many "incentives" to illegal immigration will cease to exist.
We also need a system whereby we calculate the cost of illegal immigrants to taxpayers as a percentage based upon their national origins and garnish those countries' monitary funds exchanges accordingly. ie. If Mexicans comprise 69% of illegal immigrants and the costs to taxpayers is $41 billion/year, Mexican peso exchanges would "taxed" $28.3 billion/year.
This would also be an "incentive" for those countries who support or "encourage" illegal immigration to rethink their current positions..
BTTT
BTTT
Given that offering citizenship, or at least permanent residency, to ANYONE who asks has almost become an article of religious faith in this country I'm afraid SCOTUS would have little problem overlooking that Original Intent.
The language used in this editorial is a bit inflammatory. If you want to make real immigration reform a bipartisan issue - which it needs to be - you can't use words like "brood."
bttt
Then shove it in their face and make them prove they have no regard for the Constitution.
Can I use words like "hypocrits"???
There's an article in the OC Register today about illegal alien slumtown central: "Santa Ana classrooms overflowing. Enrollment spike has left students in middle, high schools without desks, with 50 students or more in some classes." It goes on to say that the "unexpected surge in enrollment" has created a situation where some students have to "stand, sit on the floor, or cram onto foldable chairs."
Also blame a certain Wyoming Republican Senator and his idea of Amnesty, which he got into law and has been a failure. Name one member of the Senate who has had the cajones to address the issue of how we are going to assimilate this mass of people, millions of whom have shown no interest whatsoever in becoming American?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.