Before opening the borders, seal up the wombs!

What is the dirty little secret that the Bush administration doesn't tell you about its proposed "temporary" guest-worker program?

These workers will come here in the prime of life and, while they are in our country as temporary workers, they will have babies, who immediately become U.S. citizens. These workers may be poor, but they are not stupid!

The Bush administration says this plan would create a system that is "fairer, more consistent and more compassionate."

What compassionate country would deport the parents of underage U.S. citizens? Let's get real here. That will never happen!

Therefore, the only way to assure the American people that this "temporary" status truly is temporary is to seal up the wombs – sterilize – those who apply for guest-worker status. Or else change the law that grants citizenship to anyone who is born here regardless of the status of his or her parents.

Of course, the latter idea is a lot more humane and practical than the former – and a lot more compassionate to U.S. taxpayers who currently pick up the tab for the children of illegal aliens, as well as many children of those who simply drive or fly across the border on temporary visas to give birth, many at our expense.

These babies are called "anchor babies." Not only can these children become the family's ticket to a free lunch here, once these children become 21, they can sponsor their moms, dads and other family members. They, in effect, can become "anchors" for their entire clans.

Most welfare programs are, by law, off-limits to immigrants. However, once a child "anchors" into this country by birth, the child has all the benefits of any other citizen and immediately qualifies for an array of social services if the household income of his parents falls below a certain level. Free food, housing, medical services and, yes, even free money can flow to the parents of these anchor babies through their children.

The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries to offer citizenship to anyone born on its soil. The Federation of American Immigration Reform reports that only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. In the 1980s, the United Kingdom and Australia repealed the practice because their citizens simply got tired of being chumps.

Changing the law will not be easy. It likely will require rewriting the 14th Amendment. The operative phrase is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

This amendment was part of post-Civil War reforms. It was added to the Constitution in 1868 to prevent states from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States, even though their parents may have been brought here in chains.

Clearly, this phrase never was meant to cover those who come here illegally or the children born to parents who were here temporarily.

To properly understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, we can go to the words of Sen. Jacob Howard, the co-author of the citizenship clause, who said:

Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

It is important to understand that at the time the 14th Amendment was written, the U.S. had no immigration policy and the families of which Sen. Howard spoke were the only families thought to be here temporarily, whose allegiance was incomplete. In the case of illegal aliens or those here on temporary visas, the native country of the parents has a claim on the allegiance of any children born here.

Activist judges have turned the 14th Amendment upside down. We must correct that before we even consider the policy of allowing workers to come here on a temporary basis, much less allowing those who are in this country illegally to tap into this program and further abuse our resources.

Well, if he wanted to do a "noble savage book" then he was successful. I believe the author had to have an interpreter, as Black Elk spoke no English.

Whether or not Black Elk was pagan or Catholic is irrelevant to me.

Black Elk was a warrior.

Would you care to explain why #9 is less important than the others? No one thinks we shouldn't share, but there's a right way and a wrong way to share.

You posted that the Lakota Black Elk was an incredible man. Indeed he was. However, the biographer knowingly misled the reader into thinking that Black Elk continued to be a pagan. He was a warrior for a short time in his youth and then became a pagan shaman of major note. Then, forty years after Little Big Horn, he became a Catholic and a lay missionary to his people. Among the Sioux, this was analogous to a conversion of someone like Billy Graham. Whether or not the specific facts of Black Elk's life were important to him and to his family, scholarly integrity requires an accurate depiction and the 1930s book failed very badly in that respect.

I disagree with FAIR in just about every respect. There is nothing FAIR can do. They are simply stirring up trouble to no purpose. I suspect FAIR's bona fides. I believe that it has connections to Zero Population Growth. I was vey pleased when FAIR ceased influencing National Review. I am answering your question and not inviting further debate. History will resolve the immigration argument. I may be right. I may be wrong. I am going to let those who are passionately in love with Tancredo and his agenda expend their energy resenting the Mexicans while ignoring the much more dangerous Canadian border problem. In my experience here, few people who suffer angst over Mexico are amenable to genuine discussion. I probably am not either.

There is no constitutional way to achieve the goals of FAIR. I can sympathize with arguments as to what the immigration is doing to the employment prospects of Americans but that is also caused by Free Trade. I am an economic nationalist but not likely to become all hot and bothered over an influx of Mexicans. We have plenty in Northwest Illinois and they are very good additions to the community here. I have no respect whatsoever for the private Keystone Kops groups who are trying to "patrol" the border under one nutty theory of their authority after another.

The INS and its successor should not have allowed hundreds of thousands of legitimate applications for green cards to pile up in warehouses unread. The government too should obey the law. In fact, it should set an example.

Keeping Sangerism out of the conservative movement is far more important than closing borders. I am not going to change my mind on that.

I'll let the book speak for itself, and drop the discussion on who or what Black Elk was. It isn't on topic anyway.

I don't think FAIR is involved in "Sangerism" or Sangerism with conservatism. Whether or not FAIR can accomplish anything remains to be seen. I will respond to one part of your post, and then let the subject drop. Since your opinion is 180 from mine, there would be no need.

I don't think anyone here at FR resents the Mexicans. I do think Bush's proposal was directed at Mexican illegals and done specifically for Vicente Fox. Fox wants the US, Canada, and Mexico united. And that is why our President was in Monterrey pandering not to Hispancis, but Canada. The deal for Mexico has been out there since 2001. There's much more involved than a simple resentment.

One last thing. If you lived on the Southern border, or anywhere near it, you might understand why the folks there are fed-up. ie: If you live in a border state that must be taxed extra millions just for cleaning up the garbage the illegals leave, you might feel different. (And that's just for starters.)

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.