Posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:45 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
A bill recently introduced in Congress would deny U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. Supporters said the bill, called the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, would be a good way to control the number of people who have the right to claim citizenship ---- and the rights and benefits that come with it. Opponents said the measure was "extreme" and would be likely to face constitutional challenges.
An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy and research group that advocates for stricter immigration controls.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that also supports stricter policies, estimated that California spends about $7.7 billion each year to educate about 1 million children of illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
"Citizenship means you have some stake in this country; it's not just an accident of geography," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman of the federation, which supports the measure.
However, immigrant-rights groups say that citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away by Congress.
"Citizenship belongs to a person wherever they are born," said Katherine Cullion, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, a Latino rights group. "The most basic, fundamental right is the right to citizenship in the country where you were born."
Advocates for and against the measure, which has surfaced in various forms before, said the bill is unlikely to go far in Congress. The bill is now in the House Judiciary Committee. No hearing on the bill has been scheduled.
"This is really a perennial bill; it comes up each spring," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant-rights advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "It gets a handful of co-sponsors and never sees the light of day."
If enacted, the bill would stipulate that children born in the United States would be considered American citizens only if born to parents who are citizens or legal residents living in the country. Under current law, any children born in the country can claim American citizenship.
The bill was introduced last month by Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal and was co-sponsored by 16 other representatives, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach; Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar; and Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado.
Anti-illegal immigrant groups, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say immigration, legal and illegal, is largely responsible for a population explosion that could lead to unprecedented social, economic and environmental problems.
"Massive population growth has and will continue to have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans," said Dan Stein, president of the federation. The group released a study this week that indicated more than half of the nation's population growth over the last 35 years is due to immigration.
However, Steven Camarota, the Center for Immigration Studies' director of research, said the citizenship bill itself will not solve the nation's illegal immigration problem. Without immigration enforcement elsewhere, such as at the border and at work sites, denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would only make the number of illegal immigrants grow.
"By itself, it doesn't move the ball forward very much, if at all," Camarota said.
*See my past posts which use words like "tall concrete wall" "razor wire" "charge Mexico for our expenses" etc. and so on.
And our fighting men don't have to explain anything to anyone about their reasons for walking the line.
Not odd, really. The 14th Amendment says that persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Congress can't change that, but they can make other people citzens (and they have-- people born outside the U.S. to citizen parents; etc.). Congress can, and has, also set the procedural rules for how to prove whether or not someone is a citizen (rules of evidence, burdens of proof, etc.)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States "
Not plain as day to me.
What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to you?
It may surprise you to learn that it may not mean the same to me.
"Opponents said the measure was "extreme" and would be likely to face constitutional challenges."
Gee thats tough..too bad they are criminal invaders, huh??
That already is the law-- the "anchor baby" rule was abolished in 1993. If Momma is deported, she now has 3 choices-- take Jr. with her (but he gets a U.S. passport and can come back when he's 18); leave him here with relatives who are legal; or put him up for adoption.
With the possible exception of Costa Rica, what American in his/her right mind would want to live in these toilets??
I'm all for it!! Our "citizenship requirement" or really a lack of standards is ludicrous.
Chile's a nice place to live. Buenos Aires has its merits (beautiful women, best steakhouses in the world). Otherwise, I'd agree.
""Our "citizenship requirement" or really a lack of standards is ludicrous""
Isn't that the truth! We could have the cream of the crop for immigrants, instead we get the cesspool. Lots of people want to come to America, we could have only the best!
But according to congress, a six year old found wandering within our borders is not considered a citizen. Sounds arbitrary to me.
Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the laws of the US. What would you think it means?
"Buenos Aires has its merits (beautiful women, best steakhouses in the world"
You caught me on that one : )
btt
=================================
No, but our sold-out and bought-out worthless politicians have got a world of explaining to do to our fighting men.
They can start with why they are allowing this nation to be invaded by an unarmed invasion without even blinking.
Kinda makes our fighting men wonder what the hell they are fighting for - a nation without borders?
Exactly! It would seem to me that being an illegal means you are not subjecting yourself to the law.
Except for the minor fact that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution. Sorry, you lose.
Is not conclusively presumed to be a citizen. If the issue comes up, it will be determined based on whatever evidence there is.
Mr. Carry_okie, was it you who has the correct information on the 14th amendment?
This one ought to be a no-brainer, but it won't be. It will require a bitter battle with the FROBLs and SOILs to get it done.
Not a terribly bad idea. I'd oppose changing it any further than that (some have proposed three generations before citizenship), however.
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.