Posted on 12/27/2005 4:32:37 AM PST by Liz
A proposal to deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface.............
At issue is "birthright citizenship," provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Some conservatives in Congress say the amendment was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants.
...........a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December.
GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The corruption is so rife with this that the PC gestapo will have to pull out all the stops to maintain the status quo.
I agree I'm being cynical, but does citizenship matter any more? Half of us (them) wont use the word "Illegal". They get free healthcare at the hospitals, valid driver's licenses in some states, in-state tuition (some states), unchecked fraud to collect welfare services, buildings where they can wait in comfort for their day job, free education for their kids, etc.
Changing the label on a baby from legal to illegal wont change any of these freebies.
That's right. It's a racist thing to say. /sarcasm
What they are really after is that all-important hyphen which provides all sorts of benefits.
Border control or IMPEACHMENT; nuff said.
When are we going to put a stop to this nonsense??
Jeez----impeachment? That's a bit much...this President is already doing his job times ten and the work that should of been done before him.
Snort---"hyphenated Americans"---my favorite rant. Why don't we tell it like it is: real Americans don't use hyphens.
The immigrant-illegal con game is so predictable: They whine about coming here b/c they want only to get menial jobs to help out their poverty-stricken families in "underdeveloped countries."
Then, before you can say "hasta la vista, baby," working class born-American taxpayers are footing the bills for immigrants' medical needs, welfare, food stamps, housing, all levels of schooling including college, child care, maternity benefits, and so on.
Taxpayers are subsidizing immigrants' daily food intake, housing, reduced mortgages, free medical, education, reduced in-state tuition and out of state tuition fees.
We also foot the legal bills when they start suing if we don't provide these goodies pronto.
Lastly, and more ominous, is that they become hyphenated voting blocs, demanding representation in the US Congress, state legislatures and beyond so that they can get even more government benefits.
They bring with them their utter contempt for our efforts to maintain a civilied society under our Constitution.
Oh, did I hear you say "underdeveloped countries?"
The government of Mexico---with all of its oil revenue----needs to be taking care of its own people, not "outsourcing' them as wards of American taxpayers. Mexico can well-afford it. Mexico has more "Forbes" billionaires, 11, than all but eight other nations. It has more billionaires than Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or Taiwan.
It also has more than 85,000 millionaires. According to a CNN report, Mexico sits on oil reserves worth about $400 billion, but Mexico's state-owned oil company, Pemex, doesn't have the investment funds to tap those reserves, and Mexico's Congress refuses to allow foreign investment in Pemex.
However, some observers say this is due to Mexican gov't corruption, and the obsession to line their own pockets. Adding insult to injury American taxpayers are subsidizing foreign aid transfers to Mexico.
According to Visa International--which is now clamoring for a share of the transfer fees--American money sent South of the Border by illegals constitutes $38 BILLION this year alone constituting Mexico's second largest most profitable industry.
America should mandate proof for all cash transfers out of the US and/or force all transferring agencies -- banks, credit unions, Amex, Western Union to collect a substantial withholding tax -- 50%, say -- on every unexplained foreign remittance.
Mexico is a wealthy oil-producing neighbor of the US forces its poor people to flee to the US to work and then send money back home.
Mexico has no welfare safety nets, health insurance for its people and no Social Security System.
More pointedly, the US provides the defense umbrella to protect Mexico like we do for Canada. So they have no real defense expenses.
America needs to seal our borders and let Vincente Fox know that we will cut off every penny in aid he gets from the United States.
This unmitigated contempt for America, and working-class, tax-paying Americans, cannot go unchallenged.
And yet it does.....where's our BACKBONE??
Actually, once the child is born and considered an American citizen, the parents will file to become legal immigrants themselves since they are now guardians of a citizen. In the meantime, the INS will not deport them as it would harm "an American citizen". Quite the scam!
Always glad to oblige with a gentle nudge in the ribs. :}
NEW YORK – A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface – rekindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" – provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus, they say, federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Mr. Deal's proposal.
"But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that."
Mr. Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as "a huge magnet" attracting illegal immigrants. He cited estimates – challenged by immigrant advocates – that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born to illegal immigrants.
"It's an issue that we are very concerned about," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization that opposes any effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere," she said. "But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream – it's becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it."
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes Mr. Deal's proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion.
"This is red meat for conservatives," he said. "They throw out these issues they know aren't winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do a better job of educating people why it's wrong."
According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop illegal immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of Mr. Deal's measure.
"Any issue that has a 'damn right' response, you can go with," Mr. Tancredo said. "You ask if we should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this country and having a baby here who is an American citizen, and most people say, 'Damn right.' "
However, Mr. Tancredo acknowledged that Mr. Deal's measure faces major obstacles. Though he believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the proposal to come to a vote, Mr. Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or draw a veto from President Bush, who has sought a more centrist course on some immigration issues.
The best strategy, Mr. Tancredo suggested, might be to avoid presenting the measure as a separate, stand-alone bill and instead add it to a broader piece of legislation that the Senate could not disregard.
Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Deal and others have noted that the U.S. is among the relatively few wealthy nations that allow birthright citizenship.
However, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said some Western European nations with different policies have suffered problems.
"Look at Germany – the children of guest workers are not citizens," he said. "That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That's the opposite of where we want to go."
Mr. Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably strike down any measure that challenged the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantees.
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal," he said. "It's not the kind of proposal that gets taken seriously by those who actually want to grapple with immigration issues."
Some critics of existing policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor babies" because – when they reach adulthood – they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but authoritative statistics are scarce.
At first glance I thought you were posting an alien baby story from the Star or one of the other grocery store mags. Nevermind.
LOL........yeah, could have been one of their Martian-type titles.
"Ireland was experiencing the same abuse of their immigration laws as the U.S. so they did something about it. In January 2003 the Irish Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that immigrant parents of an Irish born child could be deported. It was the first reversal of Ireland's liberal policy of granting residency and possibly citizenship to anyone who had a baby in Ireland, including illegal aliens.
In June 2004 the Irish people took action: they voted birth right citizenship out of existence. The 27th amendment bill of the Irish Constitution now reads:
"Notwithstanding any other provision, a person born on the island of Ireland who does not have at the time of birth of that person at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen, is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law."
If America followed Ireland's lead and ended birth right citizenship, we would be removing a huge incentive that lures illegal aliens to our country."
sw
DEPORT THEM, DONT REWARD THEM.
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.