Posted on 05/04/2006 11:05:44 PM PDT by mnwo
Dealing with Anchor Babies
By Congressman Mac Collins (Ret. R-GA)
Each year the United States grants citizenship to a quarter of a million children of illegal aliens. There is a common misconception among the public that such citizenship is a constitutional guarantee. The fact is that the constitutional question of whether the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children of foreigners born on U.S. soil was addressed by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago in the Slaughter House Cases and, again, in 1971 in the case of Rogers v. Belle . All existing case law confirms that the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. The reality is that it was Congress, through immigration legislation, which created this prize of citizenship for the children of people who violate our laws by entering our country illegally.
Between 1997 and 2001, the unfortunate byproduct of our current immigration code has been a cost to the tax payers of the United States of billions of dollars to support these children who are popularly known as "anchor babies". They are named so because their legal status ties their illegal parents to the United States. During this time period, U.S. taxpayers have spent more than 4 billion dollars just to provide Medicaid to these children whose parents do not even pay into the system. Medicaid coverage, free education, and protection from deportation for the parents of "anchor babies" are a primary draw for many people to enter this country illegally. The time has come for our Congress to side with the majority of U.S. citizens and heed the calls for real immigration reform by repealing the INS legislation that makes the United States such an attractive residential destination for illegal aliens and their families.
A good place to begin would be to follow the example of the majority of Latin American countries and stop granting citizenship to the children of those who come into our nation illegally. Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia has proposed long overdue legislation, in the form of H.R. 698, which will once and for all rectify this flaw in our current immigration laws. Mr. Deal's legislation would simply remove the costly reward of citizenship for those whose parents have come here illegally. The time has come for the Congress and the administration to support this important legislation. As of the writing of this article only about 80 of my former colleagues in the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of Mr. Deal's legislation. By ignoring immigration reform members of Congress can avoid addressing this politically sensitive question during an election year however, by doing so they are putting their personal political interests above the needs of the citizens they are elected to represent.
Inaction on Capitol Hill has left our nation's borders tragically vulnerable, five years post-September 11th and forced the American taxpayer to continue to pay the bill for the cost of illegal immigration. The elimination of the "anchor baby" loophole in our immigration laws should be addressed immediately by Congress- and repealed.
The time to start implementing this reform is now, with the elimination of "anchor babies" and the privileges it unwittingly bestows upon illegal aliens who parent for profit. If Congress is truly concerned about reform, and the proof will come in the form of action not tedious speechifying, it can start by supporting House Resolution 698 this session. This is the critical first step in restoring the sovereignty of our Southern Border.
Mac Collins is a former Republican member of the United States House of Representative. Congressman Collins served 12 years in Congress, and in the Republican leadership of the House as a member of the Republican Steering Committee, and as Deputy Majority Whip. He was also a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
Footnotes:
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html "Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v. Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2447.shtml
The New Amnerican A Bold Remedy to a Grave Threat by George Detweiler October 31, 2005 Issue
"Congress Has the Power:
It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court affirmed the power of Congress to define terms used in the 14th Amendment in the case of Rogers v. Bellei (1971):
The place of birth governs citizenship, except as modified by statute.
The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of existing law, so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. [Emphasis added.]
H.R. 698 extends citizenship to children born in the United States of alien parents only if born in wedlock when either parent is a citizen or permanent resident alien who maintains a residence here, or to children born out of wedlock if the mother is a citizen or permanent resident alien who maintains a residence here. It also declares that it applies only to children born after the effective date of the act."
Mac Collins' Wedsites:
http://www.collinsforcongress.com
http://congressmanmaccollins.blogspot.com
This guy is wrong. I wonder why go after children who would wipe the court floor with anybody who goes after their citizenship? Wouldn't it be better to go after the "anchor" part? Congress CAN pass legislation deporting illegals (in this case the parents) and get rid of the reason for the "anchor" part, Kennedy's immigration law.
.....bookmarked.
People in District 8 in Georgia, Don't forget to vote for Mac Collins for Congress! He is a very competent conservative person. He will protect your borders, cut taxes and reduce government spending!
Candidate: Mac Collins, District 8
Address: P.O. Box 9645
Warner Robins, GA 31095-9645
Phone: (478) 225-6285
Website: www.ibackmac.org
And here I was thinking this would be about bubble-headed bleach blondes.
It seems simple to me. If a child is born to illegals then he/she is also an illegal. An illegal who owes the hospital the cost of the birth too. This is insane!! I think if an illegal mother goes to a hospital once the child is born they both and any other family members present should be deported as soon as the baby can leave the hospital. And they should be handed the bill and deported by a govt bus ( not that I think they would pay it) I used to feel bad for these people but I dont anymore. They are draining us. They knowningly break the law coming in illegally. Yet they have the thousands of dollars to pay coyotes to get them across the border. Then have the nerve to demand to drive and vote? Has our govt lost their minds? Im beyond disgusted.
The Clintons and their kind have done a lot of damage to this country.
Thousands of expectant Mexican mothers cross the border on visas or day permits just to have their babies here and then immediately return to Mexico. As a result Mexico is now full of kids who don't speak English and who have no memory of being in the U.S., but who are legally "American citizens". Our system makes no sense whatsoever.
By the way, this system of allowing people to enter the U.S. on day permits like for shopping is something one seldom sees written about. However it is widely abused and is a major source of illegal immigration. With one of these permits you can say you are entering "to go shopping", and then just stay in the U.S..
For a Mexican citizen to acquire one of these day permits involves a little red tape, but someone with a job and a stable residence in Mexico can easily do it. Once this day permit is acquired, they often go to live with relatives or friends already in the U.S.. These day permits or visas to cross the border are a major source of illegal immigration and are something no border fence will stop.
I wish he had mentioned what legislation he's referring to in the above quote.
"Ireland was the last of the original 15 EU nations to abolish birthright citizenship, thereby effectively closing the back door to the European Union.
No anchor babies plague Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom or Ireland".
sw
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Citizenship Reform Act of 2005'.SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.Citizenship Reform Act of 2005
SEC. 3. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CHILDREN OF NON-CITIZEN, NON-PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.
(a) In General- Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:`(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United States shall be considered as `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States´ if --
`(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or
For purposes of this subsection, a child is considered to be `born in wedlock´ only if both parents are married to each other and parents are not considered to be married if such marriage is only a common law marriage.´.`(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 301 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended by inserting `(as defined in section 101(d))´ after `subject to the jurisdiction thereof´.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
ping
I don't remember any discussions on the 14th. You sure they were with me?
I cannot even find the Rogers v. Belle case mentioned above.
That was apparently a typo in the body of the article. In the footnotes it's shown as Rogers v. Bellei.
H.R. 698 must be passed to correct a congressional error. The Motor Voter Act must be repealed.
Your story sure hit a chord with me! In our case, they kept changing their demands. We'd send all the paperwork and fees. They'd lose them and take six months to tell us we had to replace them. We'd send another set. Another six months and we'd hear, "Well, now we don't need ___ anymore; we need ___." More papers. More money. More days spent on hold trying to call, or trips to Buffalo and New York City. Weeks, months, years. Then we had to move to California, and it started all over again. Buffalo couldn't be trusted to ship the papers to San Francisco; apparently everything got lost and we were at Square One again. By then requirements had changed. All the money we'd spent for translation of her Brazilian documents (which we could've done ourselves for free, but NO, that wasn't good enough)? Had to be done again. All original documents from two countries to be replaced and notarized...again. Duplicates, triplicates...no! That was last week! This week, they have to be triplicates and duplicates! Drive to San Jose; wait four hours for appointment to find out it was cancelled. More fees. More pictures, since she'd outgrown the others. More waiting.
Finally took a letter from Sam Farr's office (our district...sighhhh...) and within two weeks, we had our final face-to-face. I don't credit Farr for this, but some nice person who works for him sent off a letter on our behalf. I often wanted to throw a hissy like you did, but with our luck we would've been arrested or something.
Of course, Sam Farr is Congresscritter-For-Life around here, and he wouldn't give a hoot what I think about anchor babies. But I feel like copying this whole thread and sending it to him.
This has to STOP! I had no idea this was being done in a 'legally' federally supported manner. This stuff really needs to get out there in the news. Where are the news stations and papers that spend so much time bashing Bush and the War? Asleep at the wheel, even Fox should be doing a special on this stuff. If regular everyday Americans knew the facts regarding these laws, it would continue to move them to demand change.
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.