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.
==============================
And how do you suppose going about doing that when those given the responsibility to enforce the existing laws are the very ones who are circumventing them?
Tagline time.
Most of Latin America recognizes citizenship for those born within the national borders to foreign nationals. When I was in Costa Rica, a major complaint was about Nicaraguan anchor babies.
I agree, about time. Deal with the anchor baby problem. But... would this not take an amendment to the Constitution?
Sorry, but that only applies to those children born here legally. You see, there is a difference and the end does not justify the means if such is illegal.
Suppose a baby is born to an illegal mother without record of the birth being made. The mother claims it was born inside our borders.
Is it a citizen or not?
This may be the first step to get the focus on the word "illegal" again, and might lead to other laws, such as not providing schooling to people who are not residents. And someone here illegally could be determined NOT to be a resident. Cool.
Could you imagine the pregnant illegal, going in to have her baby, and being explained to in Spanish, "This is your obstetrician. He will deliver your baby for free. This here is your pediatrician. He will make sure your baby is healthy, for free. And here is your immigration control officer. He will escort your baby back to Mexico for free."
Korean women often "visit" Hawaii or LA in the final weeks of a pregnancy. They stay until the child is born in the States. They then return with a child who can use his US status to avoid compulsory military service in the ROK 18 years later.
""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"".
Could it be the argument will be since they are not legally born here, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It says born here AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Just a thought.
To my knowledge, Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Panama, and Colombia all grant citizenship to those born within their borders to foreign nationals.
The law that a child born here is a citizen has not been repealed (and cannot be unless the 14th Amendment is amended.) What was repealed in 1993 was the "anchor baby" statute, which said that a child citizen could sponsor her illegal parents. The result is that, if illegal aliens have a child born in the U.S., they have to either give the child up for adoption, or take the child with them when they are deported (but the child gets to return at age 18).
One way to fix this immigration mess would be to get rid of most govt-mandated "social welfare" programs starting with Medicaid and food stamps.
It is ridiculous how corrupt these programs are. Doing away with these regressive and oppressive socialistic schemes for EVERYBODY would go a long way into limiting the number of illegal immigrants (or any for that matter), except the best.
Passing law after law and or erecting barriers on the borders is plainly ineffective.
Let's face it. SCOTUS gives not one crap about the Constitution. They make up its own laws based on international opinion now.
As they used to say on Usenet, "Cite, please."
Show us where legal and illegal birth is defined in the law.
For once lets not invite a flame war.
Most of us would be tickled pink if this measured were to ass.
Probably won't happen but if it does maybe they will make it retroactive for the past 10 years :o!
I never said they didn't. As long as they have jurisdiction over a particular case, they're going to be pulling the same crap over and over. Congress has several options available to control the federal courts including impeachment, amending the Constitution, and restricting the courts' jurisdiction.
Isn't enforcement of current immigration law the responsibility of The Department of Homeland Security?
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.