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.
You mean we have Mexicans voting in our general election as Democrats?
You need to read the text of Article III, Section I. My explanation in the previous message will help.
Think they have the spine for that ?
===============================
#18
Yes. Where have you been?
I agree with you (today).
There is no question in my mind, however, that if you and I had presented that argument in 1789, we would be laughed out of town.
That's pretty much the only argument that can be made to support such a law. One can make a decent case that this reflects original intent (the freedmen, who were the people whose rights were primarily addressed, were legally present in the country; the various Amerindian tribes, who lived on reservations that were nominally separate nations under an American protectorate, were not considered citizens until Congress revisited that issue by statute).
Quite correct but the Constitution then goes on to list what comprises the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. When Congress attempted to add to that jurisdiction, the result was the case of Marbury v. Madison. (Of course that was not the issue that brought Marbury v. Madison to the SC but that was the result of the Court's ruling.) Marshall said that Congress does not have the power to give the Supreme Court new original jurisdiction without amending the Constitution.
At the very least, Congress should attempt to remove the Court's ability to hear such cases. If that doesn't work, there are always other options available but the easiest one should be tried first.
And all persons--not just citizens--within our boundaries or subject to our jurisdiction are entitled to the protection of our laws. Even the Romans didn't go that far.
But if the Dums went to, say, effin Iran (I hear they need human shields, Go!) and tried their act there, they'd be dog-meat before sundown.
Just one reason why these US of A make up the greatest country in the history of the world. And our flag rocks too. Why be modest?
Yes, it carves out certain areas of law which Congress may not delegate to any of the lesser courts it may choose to create. That has nothing to do with the matter before us, as none of those areas of law are involved here.
I'm sure President Bush will come out and give his support to this bilL!
I guarantee you those on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan don't cherish the thought that while they are bleeding and dying in a rat hole on the other side of the planet their home country is being overrun by an unarmed invasion.
Anchor Baby.......
What year?
Yep, it does. It doesn't say, however, that little Maria's mother gets to stay in the U.S.
I say keep the kid, send momma back to Mexico. The government would only have to do this once or twice to cut way down on women sneaking over the border to have kids just to get to stay in the U.S.
==============================
Which of the following is the best way to solve the illegal immigration problem?
| Seal and militarize the borders | |
| 49.1% |   |
| Beef up and enforce existing law | |
| 35.6% | |
| Some form of guest worker program | |
| 10.4% | |
| Other | |
| 3.0% | |
| Undecided/Pass | |
pong
I would venture an unconfirmed (but confident) guess that the only country where an arrogant and presumptuous lawyer type would make such a statement is the United States of America.
In other words, BS!
Is it true of Mexico?
I'd have to check on Mexico. I do know that when one of my Professors fled Austria following the Anschluss, he found it much easier to get into Mexico than the U.S.
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.