Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
NCTimes ^

Posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:45 AM PST by Happy2BMe

Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer

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.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 109th; aliens; anchor; anchorbaby; citizenship; congress; illegalmigrant; illegals; immigration; immigrationreform; mexico; migrant; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-283 next last
To: afnamvet
"The key to this invasion is enforcing existing laws on the books. Prosecuting indidviduals that hire illegal aliens would help also."

==============================

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.

41 posted on 03/02/2005 9:57:18 AM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government *IS* the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

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.


42 posted on 03/02/2005 9:57:52 AM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

I agree, about time. Deal with the anchor baby problem. But... would this not take an amendment to the Constitution?


43 posted on 03/02/2005 9:58:14 AM PST by Ingtar (Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

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.


44 posted on 03/02/2005 9:58:30 AM PST by Neoliberalnot (Conservatism: doing what is right instead of what is easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeLurker
Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the laws of the US which every person in the US is except foreign diplomats.

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?

45 posted on 03/02/2005 9:59:15 AM PST by skeeter ("A nation without borders is not a nation" RW R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
The wonderful thing about this is it could be the slippery slope we are looking for. Since it only affects the children of ILLEGAL immigrants, babies born to people here who waited in line for the proper visas would be welcome Americans. So would the babies of tourists. But babies of ILLEGALS would not become citizens.

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."

46 posted on 03/02/2005 9:59:25 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

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.


47 posted on 03/02/2005 9:59:30 AM PST by wtc911 ("I would like at least to know his name.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Wrong, Congress is given the authority under Article III, Section 1 to setup the federal courts which includes their jurisdiction. Congress has already limited the court's jurisdiction before and they can do it again. There is also a bill to remove the federal court's ability to hear any cases involving homosexual marriage but that's another issue.
48 posted on 03/02/2005 10:00:11 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; Lurking Libertarian; Publius6961

""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.


49 posted on 03/02/2005 10:00:16 AM PST by ozarkgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

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.


50 posted on 03/02/2005 10:00:16 AM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stevio
I read an article about New Jersey illegals that had been caught and had to leave with their 11 yr old daughter, even though the daughter was born here. I was under the assumption that that law was repealed in '93-'94.

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).

51 posted on 03/02/2005 10:00:32 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

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.


52 posted on 03/02/2005 10:00:44 AM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Excellent! :-)
53 posted on 03/02/2005 10:01:07 AM PST by BlessedBeGod (George W. Bush -- The Terror of the Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet
"Prosecuting individuals that hire illegal aliens would help also." You mean like politicians? Yeah, that'll happen.
54 posted on 03/02/2005 10:01:12 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Let's face it. SCOTUS gives not one crap about the Constitution. They make up its own laws based on international opinion now.


55 posted on 03/02/2005 10:01:37 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
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.

As they used to say on Usenet, "Cite, please."

Show us where legal and illegal birth is defined in the law.

56 posted on 03/02/2005 10:02:04 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Funny how some people are never happy no matter what happens. One step at a time will result in far more being done than trying for everything all at once.

For once lets not invite a flame war.

Most of us would be tickled pink if this measured were to ass.

57 posted on 03/02/2005 10:03:00 AM PST by skeeter ("A nation without borders is not a nation" RW R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

Probably won't happen but if it does maybe they will make it retroactive for the past 10 years :o!


58 posted on 03/02/2005 10:03:14 AM PST by shattered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
Let's face it. SCOTUS gives not one crap about the Constitution. They make up its own laws based on international opinion now.

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.

59 posted on 03/02/2005 10:03:47 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
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?

Isn't enforcement of current immigration law the responsibility of The Department of Homeland Security?

60 posted on 03/02/2005 10:04:59 AM PST by afnamvet (31st Air Wing Tuy Hoa AFB RVN 68-69 "Return with Honor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-283 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson