Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?"
It's not a wording issue.
A person born here is not a foreigner. He's an American, and therefore not an immigrant.
What you probably mean is: should the child of foreign parents born in the US be an American? The Constitution says they are, so they are. SHOULD they be? I think so. It's the only way to eventually regularize the illegals in America. As it is, there are about 20 million illegal aliens in America. The economic interests that use them are stronger than the old slavery interests ever were, because the slavers were concentrated in one part of the Union, but the economic interests who benefit from cheap illegal labor are all over the country. The inaction of the federal government and state and local governments on the illegals issue is the natural response of government faced with the truth that the middle class and up all rely on these 20 million unprotected workers for cheap labor that is below the norms of US labor law.
Now, so long as their children are Americans, because born here, this subjection of one illegal class of workers to the society is non-permanent. They come and work. The society at all levels, from middle class people with yard-work to do to WalMart, breaks its own laws because it's economically good for them to do so. The immigrants themselves are not protected, and can't be protected because the advantages of exploiting them are too strong, and the financial incentives, from there perspective, to come and stay here are too great.
What you cannot do is let them become a hereditary race of unprotected, illegal laborers. That would be a gross injustice. Americans have a hunger for this cheap labor, unprotected by American laws and without recourse to the American courts. That is understandable. If they want that sort of labor, they have to keep importing it. They cannot be allowed to make it an hereditary caste.
Babies born in America are Americans, and move into the system of protection. Close the borders, and in a generation the cheap illegal labor pool will dry up.
Their children will be Americans, and protected, and vote. That is as it should be. It is what's best for the country, in the long run.
If the borders won't be closed, you'll always have the cheap labor, but it will keep having to be removed, because there will not be a class of legal "sudras" in America, born of illegals and, therefore, hereditarily unprotected.
Because Congress can legislate a parcel of land as not American soil, they can legislate that children born on American soil aren't necessarily American citizens? Those two things aren't the same unless Congress plans to make other pieces of land as not American soil as their solution.
"House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border..."
Wow! I just saw a bunch of pigs flying over! Have you heard, Hell is freezing over as we speak!
I think you are confused. The DREAM Act is aimed at the children of illegals that were born ELSEWHERE and smuggled in as minors and educated at the expense of American taxpayers. They essentially stole their K-12 education from our children. The DREAM Act would give them the right to steal even more taxpayer dollars in the form of subsidized college education. It also gives them a PATH TO CITIZENSHIP if they get a college education or I think maybe also if the serve in the military.
In contrast, the practice of illegal aliens having anchor babies on American soil is very much alive and has never been ended. These babies are born as American citizens and have all rights of American citizens including the full buffet of welfare benefits which their illegal parents immediately sign them up for. They are a food-stamp meal ticket for the whole illegal family. Because these anchor babies were born on our soil, current misguided law already gives them all rights that the DREAM Act is trying to give to the children of illegals that were born elsewhere and smuggled in.
"The drafters of the 14th amendment during congressional deliberations on the amendment EXPLICITLY said that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship simply because you are in the borders of the United States."
Legislative history is interesting, like the Federalist Papers. But it is only advisory.
What is written down and passed as law is the only thing that actually IS law, and is binding. The 14th Amendment on its face applies the lex solis. I'd expect that any effort to simply legislate that away would be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional.
Infinitely too cowardly to ever see this happen.
Notice the key phrase highlighted below:
-----------------------------------------------------------14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Using that precedent, Congress could define as "territory of the birth mother" any place, including a delivery room, where an alien mother gives birth to a child, in the United States, for the time of the birth of that child.
If Congress does that, and the Supreme Court does not strike it down, the anchor baby problem would be solved.
John / BIllybob
So are you going to deny that anchor baby citizen access to welfare programs like foodstamps and assistance to children programs that other minor citizens are eligble for? It seems then that you would be treating one citizen child very differently from another citizen child. If you deport the citizen child's illegal parents the child can either stay in America with legal relatives or go back to the parents country of origen. You are either denying the anchor citizen the opportunity for an American education or the opportunity to be raised by its parents.
I would prefer to not open these cans of worms by just giving the child the same citizenship as its parents.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....see post #147.
Good point but what about a simple resolution by Congress and an affirmation by SCOTUS regarding post #147?
The United States can grant or deny citizenship but it cannot make someone a citizen of another county. If this law was passed and stand up to judicial review and another country, say Mexico, decided to limit citizenship to those born within its borders, then a child born of illegal Mexican immigrants would be citizen of nowhere.
I am not particularly jealous of their citizenship in various third world hell-holes but I am very concerned that their dual (or tri) citizenship status leaves them with divided loyalties that could potentially make them less than loyal American citizens. For example they could be pursuaded to vote in ways that were not necessarily in the best interests of other Americans.
That's not unique to this issue - many immigrants who gain US citizenship, even as adults, can retain their original citizenship as well. It's not an "either/or" proposition. The US allows it but doesn't "encourage" dual citizenship. If the other country allows it, then the new US Citizen gets to carry two passports.
Heck, even if the other country doesn't allow it. Just ask the Governor of California, who had to get special favors to be one of the very few US/Austria dual citizens.
Personally, I'd rather see US citizenship be one or the other for naturalized Americans. Be a citizen of your original country or be an American.
Quit mulling it and just do it!!!
"Regularize" the illegals?? McCain is that you?
We don't need to regularize anybody whose first act in our country was to break the law. Enough is enough of doing that, it's already been done several times and been proven a failure, it only encourages more of the same.
I don't understand all the whooping about "anchor babies." From what I can see, it is another urban legend. INS recently came thru here and busted a BUNCH of people. Several of them were young mothers. Their kids are US citizens, but the mother is getting deported. They can stay if they can find someone to take care of them, or they can return as US citizens at age 18, but the idea that the parents can stay just because their kids are citizens is simply not true.
Thanks for weighing in on this issue! This has bugged me for a long time. I don't see why we have to give citizenship to a child born to illegals who are breaking the law by being in this Country.
I totally agree!
Because you denying a right to the children in order to punish the parents- I am not really comfortable with that. We allow states to deny the right to vote to felons, but we don't allow them to deny that right to their children.
BTTT!!!!
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.