Posted on 09/29/2005 12:16:11 AM PDT by Hushpuppie
Silvia Moreno snuck across the U.S. border from Mexico and made it to Atlanta to join her husband last year.
When she gave birth this year, she named her daughter Scarlett, after Scarlett O'Hara.
Moreno, 26, had watched "Gone With the Wind" and was inspired by the Atlanta heroine.
"She worked so hard. She overcame adversity to survive," said Moreno, who wants her daughter to develop the same strength.
Scarlett Alvarado Moreno, 6 months, is a U.S. citizen because she was born here; her mother, father, and 4-year-old brother are illegal immigrants.
Millions of families like Scarlett's will be the focus of a hearing today before a U.S. House subcommittee in Washington to discuss birthright citizenship, dual citizenship and its effect on national sovereignty.
As President Bush opens the debate on a temporary worker program that could allow immigrant laborers to come into the United States, the issue of what happens to their children has come to the forefront.
Although revoking the birthright guarantee is not likely to be part of Congress' immigration reform agenda this fall, there are increasing signs lawmakers are thinking about altering a privilege grounded in common law and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The proposals come in a post-9/11 time of increasing suspicion toward illegal immigrants. Several bills have been introduced.
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) wants to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment that also would limit birthright citizenship. Such an amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
'Anchor babies'
A proposal by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who heads a 90-member caucus pushing to tighten immigration laws, would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of temporary immigrant workers.
Tancredo said the provision is vital because temporary workers would not want to leave after their visas expire if their children are U.S. citizens, or so-called anchor babies.
Moreno, of Atlanta, thinks it's unjust to deny citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents, although illegal, work hard.
"People work so much, and they give their youth to this country," Moreno said.
Moreno wanted Scarlett to be an American because with the blue American passport, "the doors of the world are open to her," she said.
Mexicans have a harder time getting tourist visas to see the world, she said.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies to reduce illegal immigration, said the lure of U.S. citizenship for children is a "huge incentive" for people to come to the United States illegally because it opens the door to many social benefits.
Also, once they reach 21, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can petition for their parents' residency. Family reunification often is cited as a reason for amnesty proposals.
There were 6.3 million illegal immigrant families in the United States in 2004, according to a study released in June by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most of them — 59 percent — do not have children, the study said.
But nearly one-third of families headed by illegal immigrants do have children who are U.S. citizens, the study said.
Immigrant advocates and Hispanic groups say finding work is the major motivation for illegal immigration.
"The only thing that this kind of change gets you ... is stateless people, which doesn't solve any problem," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.
"This is not a matter of immigration policy, this is a matter of changing who we are fundamentally as a nation," she said.
The United States grants citizenship to every child born in the United States with the exception of children of occupying forces and foreign diplomats, who keep the citizenship of their home country, said Peter J. Spiro, an international law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who is testifying at today's hearing.
Spiro said that proposals to change the birthright citizenship have been around since the mid-1990s, but several court decisions have upheld the citizenship.
"It's part now of our entrenched constitutional tradition that all children born in the territory of the United States are deemed citizens at birth," he said.
Ides Mercado, 19, who said she came from Honduras five years ago on a visa, warned of consequences if the birthright provision is revoked.
"There will be a lot of illegals here if they don't let the children be citizens," she said as she pushed a stroller with her 7-month-old daughter through Plaza Fiesta on Buford Highway in DeKalb County.
Daisy Montoya Becerra, 24, of Atlanta has one son born here, one son born in Mexico and another child on the way.
She's glad her younger son has U.S. citizenship.
"If he weren't a citizen, they'd take away Medicaid," she said.
She's also happy her younger son will be able to cross the border freely instead of having to slip across with a smuggler.
"With papers, he can come and go easily," she said.
ping
Especially because it is unconstitutional by the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
Clearly you do not understand the distinction between being "subject to the jurisdiction" and being within the jurisdiction.
I think that I qualify under that plan. Some of my ancestors who were here at that time may have been fugitives from the law, however. Does that pose a problem? (It's not like the stole a lot of cattle...)
Until 1965, people admitted to the country legally had no automatic right to bring their families; skilled professionals came before wives and children.The new law gave the top preference to unmarried adult children of US citizens but the very next preference category was spouses, minor children and unmarried adult children of immigrants.
This was a huge change.
Under the old law, only citizens had the right to sponsor immigrants.
Now, as soon as he got here, any newcomer could send for his family.
This is what produced the chain migration that has emptied entire Mexican villages.
==================================
Millions of families (who are illegal aliens) like Scarlett's will be the focus of a hearing today before a U.S. House subcommittee in Washington to discuss birthright citizenship, dual citizenship and its effect on national sovereignty.As President Bush opens the debate on a temporary worker program that could allow immigrant laborers to come into the United States, the issue of what happens to their children has come to the forefront.
Still a No.
A child should be an American citizen if one of his parents was an American citizen at the time he was born. That's it. Period.
Oh, you're letting too much riff-raff in that way.... why not insist that one must have ancestors who were here before Bacon's Rebellion, or before the Glorious Revolution (to keep out the royalist riff-raff). < /snarkasm>
Actually it was done in the 1996 immigration reform law.
At that time the objective was to make the illegals go home and take the minor child with them. When the child was 18, it could return as an adult citizen.
This is PURE AJC botching the legal reporting.
What happened post reform was that the immigration lawyers started up with the BS "hardship" return cases. Baby needs medical care, the child is ADD, or some other excuse.
You also see these "anecdote" stories when some immigration lawyer sends out a press release to try and get free PR and do PR pressure on the immigration service.
The Deal bill sounds like a reasonable solution; the Foley bill sounds like a pipe dream. Currently, there are two legal exceptions to those granted citizenship at birth: (1)Children of those born here on official diplomatic postings and (2)Children of those born to invading or occupying enemy combatants.
The simple and quick solution is to add a third category: (3)Childern of those born to those who are illegally present in the country. In many cases, there is an overlap between category (2) and (3) anyway, whether it be a Al Qaida cell or a reconquistadora La Raza type.
That works for me. Although I'd also be inclined to add children of green card holders as an incentive to be legal.
That works for me. Although I'd also be inclined to add children of green card holders as an incentive to be legal.
Did your mother come here illegally?
Where was your father born? You don't say. Go back to DU troll.
It is not the obligation of the United States to pass laws to accomodate the convenience of illegal immigrants. This problem could be easily addressed by Mexico granting citizenship to children born abroad of Mexican parents. They seem to have no problem issuing them Consular cards.
It's not the birthright citizenship that's the problem, it's the unconstitutional welfare "rights" hung from it.
If you're born here, you're an American - period.
Get rid of the welfare state.
here is how the illegals don't get citizenship will work.
The democrats and the immigration lawyer lobby will demand that illegal born children be given legal residence for "humanitarian medical birth" reasons. The illegal will not get citizenship but a green card.
The green card will then be converted to citizenship after five years.
Immigration lawyers will figure out a way to make this work for them. IOW a $2,000 case has just become a $5,000 case. (per person)
We have to think this out 10 or 20 steps ahead because eliminating the anchor babies before did not work.
(also BEWARE the "dream act"! That is another back door for illegals)
Anchor Baby has a stronger visceral appeal and points up the abuse of Constitutional intent. This ought to be a major issue in '06 and '08. Would require a Constitutional amendment to repair and restore intent.
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.