Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)

American Thinker ^ | 04/24/2013 | Cindy Simpson

[SeekAndFind]

Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."

Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.

While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."

[Rides3]

That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to SPECIFICALLY address this issue. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

We already have one. All we need to do is to actually adhere to it and stop with the political 'policy' of wink, wink... legally, you're not a citizen but we'll "deem" you to be one anyway.

The children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens were never meant to have birthright U.S. citizenship. If their parents actually DO naturalize at some later time, they can acquire U.S. citizenship that way.

[Jeff Winston]

I disagree. There have been several rulings by U.S. Secretaries of State stating EXACTLY such in denying U.S. citizenship to those born in the U.S. to temporarily resident aliens, AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment.

And have there been any since 1898? Can you name even one?

When it comes to a Secretary of State, versus a federal court, federal court trumps.

[Rides3]

And have there been any since 1898? Can you name even one?

The primary factor in considering precedence established by the court is the question asked and answered and Gray was very specific in the Wong Kim Ark ruling....

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"

"The single question" asked and answered: Whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

Parents' status matters in regards to whether one born in the U.S. is a born citizen.

Put an end to the political 'policy' of wink, wink... legally, you're not a citizen but we'll "deem" you to be one anyway.

[Jeff Winston]

The primary factor in considering precedence established by the court is the question asked and answered and Gray was very specific in the Wong Kim Ark ruling....

So the answer is "No."

I agree that the Wong decision leaves enough wiggle room for someone to challenge the status of children born to temporary visitors. I don't think it leaves enough wiggle room for them to actually prevail in such a challenge.

And if you disagree, that's fine.