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

NCTimes ^

[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.

[skeeter]

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

It was an accident, honest.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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?

The Constitution doesn't say. Congress has passed a statute which says that someone outside the U.S. trying to get in must prove their citizenship, but that any child under 5 found in the U.S. is presumed to be a citizen unless the Government can prove he's not.

[COEXERJ145]

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

I agree but some people just have to whine whenever the word immigration comes up.

[paltz]

Scotus has been engaging in policy since Marbury v. Madison. Nothing will stop them from shooting this down.

[Salgak]

No. . .fight the results of liberal policies with more liberalism. . .make every pregnant illegal alien go through the highest of all Liberal Sacraments: an abortion. . .THEN deport 'em. . .

[skeeter]

The Constitution doesn't say. Congress has passed a statute which says that someone outside the U.S. trying to get in must prove their citizenship, but that any child under 5 found in the U.S. is presumed to be a citizen unless the Government can prove he's not.

Odd that congress gets to decide whos a citizen in this case, but not in others. And in spite of the 14th Amendment.

[Happy2BMe]

"There go about 15 or 20 million RAT voters...."

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

Mexicans vote the majority on the Democratic ticket.

[OneTimeLurker]

"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?"

If the child was born in the US then yes the child is. That has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The child won't be a citizen if it was born outside of the borders. Proving it was born in the US is a different matter than jurisdiction. Citizen or not, every person in the US except foreign diplomats are subject to US jurisdiction.

[MeanWestTexan]

Alas, in this instance they would be reading the Constitution correctly.

The black letters of the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the US.

[kellynla]

but does it allow the parents who are illegals to stay???
I don't think sooooooo

[Happy2BMe]

"Perhaps this woman should focus her attention on all those countries that already fail to recognize what she claims is a "basic, fundamental right".

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

Look no further than Mexico.

[DoctorMichael]

About time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wouldntbprudent]

this would be an excellent first step! Having children become citizens at birth is a huge incentive for coming over the board to pop the bun.

[Right Wing It]

FINALLY! I was starting to think that Bush would never do anything about this. I am almost surprised he signed it. Now it's time to start sealing the borders.

[Texas_Jarhead]

""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.""

How about the right of citizens and their duly elected government representatives to determine who receives citizenship and how.

[skeeter]

If the child was born in the US then yes the child is. That has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The child won't be a citizen if it was born outside of the borders. Proving it was born in the US is a different matter than jurisdiction.

I beg to differ. It is central to the point of whether illegals are subject to US jurisdiction.

[douglas1]

DOES MEXICO ?

[Happy2BMe]

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

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

The SCOTUS was never designed to override the Congress and Senate - which is what they do now on a regular basis.

* * *

"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.

* * *

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2004 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[steve-b]

Nope. Congress has the authority to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (explicitly stated) and the authority to regulate the original and appellate jurisdiction of lesser federal courts (implicit in the statement that such lesser federal courts are the creatures of Congress). Thus, the most they could do is to deny lesser federal courts original jurisdiction (which would place original jurisdiction directly at the Supreme Court) and deny appellate jurisdiciton to the Supreme Court (which would be moot, as they would have no reason to appeal their own original-jurisdiction case).

[Centurion2000]

ABOUT TIME ! :)