Posted on 09/04/2015 5:30:36 AM PDT by xzins
The First Lady of the Conservative Movement, and our longtime friend, Phyllis Schlafly has posted an excellent article on Townhall explaining that a federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.
Jeb BushRepublican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children "anchor babies."
The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to "birth tourists," primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called "anchor babies" because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens, and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.
The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but Mrs. Schlafly explains that an explosive document filed there last week by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.
The brief begins by declaring that "Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing," and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, "Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent." In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.
Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States." But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is "subject to the jurisdiction" of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t).
By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, says Schlafly, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain "subject to the jurisdiction" of Mexico.
The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says that "My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals" and "The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad."
Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its "nationals abroad," observes Schlafly, is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.
The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.
Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.
In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents which it has no way to verify.
The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship.
On the contrary, says attorney Phyllis Schlafly, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.
The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year observed Mrs. Schlafly.
We think Donald Trump has a knack for getting right to the heart of establishment Republican hypocrisy, and especially Jeb Bush hypocrisy, and his point about Bush differentiating between Asian anchor babies and Hispanic anchor babies is right on target, because there is no differentiation – they are both subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.
As Mrs. Schlafly so cogently explained, wealthy Asians, particularly Chinese, and poor Latin Americans make a point of having children in the United States for the same reason; to access the benefits American citizenship confers upon their children.
So Jeb Bush’s distinction between the two groups makes no sense, logically. But it does prove a point we’ve made before. And that is that Jeb is a “gringo aplatanado,” or American who has “gone native” and adopted Latin American culture as his own.
From identifying himself as “Hispanic” on a voter registration form, to his refusal to acknowledge that the same argument against granting birthright citizenship to the offspring of birth-tourists applies to the offspring of illegal aliens, Jeb Bush just can’t bring himself to fight for the sovereignty of the United States, the quality of life of America’s hard-pressed working citizens and the preservation of American exceptionalism.
Mexico admits that their citizens retain Mexican citizenship. That means anchor babies are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US. And that means they are not US citizens.
A sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access the US's generous welfare system......declaring that "Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,"
THE MONEY QUOTE A footnote states that "Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent." IOW, anchor babies born in the US retain their parents’ Mexican nationality.
=====================================================
The Mexican consul's sworn testimony asserts that "My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals" and "The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad."
Ergo, Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its "nationals abroad," is inconsistent with any claim to automatic US citizenship merely by reason of birth on US soil.
There is a typo in the cut & paste which is not in the original “Jeb BushRepublican presidential candidate Donald Trump” in the second paragraph. Jeb Bush is an addition by the poster probably inadvertent but possibly sardonic.
It’s my fault. There’s a photo of Bush to the left of that paragraph and it apparently aligned with that paragraph when I copy/pasted. I didn’t catch it. Didn’t even notice it until you pointed it out. Thanks. I don’t think the mods can modify a piece of a sentence. I hope it doesn’t confuse people.
Interesting. Of course, it should be noted that there could be a claim of dual citizenship. For example, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and because Canada has birthright citizenship, Cruz automatically became a Canadian citizen. Cruz was also a US citizen via jus sanguinis because his mother was an American. Cruz has since renounced his Canadian citizenship.
However, when people are naturalized in the US they are not permitted to be dual citizens. They must renounce their extra citizenship.
What do we know for sure about this? We know that Mexico claims these as their own officially.
Therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
Beyond that, I do not see a residence established on the part of illegal immigrants. The child must be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ and been already a resident of a state. “The state in which they RESIDE.”
On the contrary, says attorney Phyllis Schlafly, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.
Exactly. Texas has them in the cross hairs.
“Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.”
This proves Trump’s statement that Mexico is purposely sending its poor to the US to obtain welfare benefits.
RETURN Jebby Bush to MEXICO....NOW!!!!!!!
The Mexican “citizens” residing on US soil “cared for by the Mexican govt” ...... wire-transfer some $22 billion back to Mexico annually......their take from riding the US gravy train under multiple identities.
Taxpayers demand an accounting of welfare, food, housing, healthcare, and education tax dollars given away to these people from all US jurisdictions.
Then demand Mexico repay the money.
And stop the wire-transfers to Mexico.
Refuse to be dragged into the debate on the 14th Amendment, and instead present your plan to make it irrelevant.
1. Build the Wall.
2. Enforce E-Verify (means fining violating employers)
3. Enforce the Border.
4. Deport the Criminals.
5. Stop providing taxpayer benefits to illegals.
6. Privatize the legal immigration process, to motivate efficiency.
Number # 6 on your list is an interesting idea...
We would need a federally funded program to clean up the toxic waste from exploding liberals heads if ever passed..
1 to 5 are no brainers...except to our overlords in DC...
Wrong. We recognize dual citizenship. From the State Department:
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth.
A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. nationality. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose nationality.
What do we know for sure about this? We know that Mexico claims these as their own officially. Therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
Mexico has birthright citizenship and citizenship based on jus sanguinis. Same as we do. Mexicans having children here can register them at the Mexican consulate as Mexican citizens
Beyond that, I do not see a residence established on the part of illegal immigrants. The child must be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ and been already a resident of a state. “The state in which they RESIDE.”
We need that decided by the courts. Right now they are being given US citizenship at birth. They can apply for benefits and be issued US passports. That is the law now.
Most illegals get benefits thru their American born children.
I have no idea what you mean by privatizing the legal immigration process. It is ridiculous to outsource legal immigration given the national security concerns along with the impact on the economy. Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to set the rules on who can and cannot enter along with determing who can be a citizen.
Naturalized citizens cannot hold dual citizenship. They must renounce their old citizenship as part of the naturalization process.
A case such as Cruz’s was not a naturalization. He had dual citizenship at birth because of the laws of both countries.
No they don't. They can hold dual citizenship and two passports. We recognize that other countries can confer citizenship. As long as the naturalized citizen is not applying for other citizenship from another country. I thought the information I provided to you was quite clear. We recognize dual nationalities.
Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but in 1967 the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship.
However, the US government remained disdainful of dual citizenship for some time. To this day, candidates for US citizenship through naturalization are forced to (at least hypothetically) renounce their previous citizenship at the United States naturalization ceremony.
The renouncing of one’s previous citizenship is part of the oath that new US citizens must take, and failing to honor that oath could result in the loss of citizenship in the United States.
Some cases that have been brought before the Department of State in the past involve people who became naturalized US citizens but maintained a residency and life in their country of previous citizenship.
While most countries recognize the Oath of Allegiance in the United States to be a binding contract regarding one’s citizenship, other countries have stated that the oath has no effect on their own citizenship laws. The US government used to aggressively pursue these cases to get the dual citizens to renounce their citizenship, but this is no longer the case.
Additionally, young children who naturalize in the United States along with their parents didn’t take the Oath of Allegiance — even though their parents did — and can technically still hold on to their previous citizenship.
People who have held dual citizenship since birth or childhood — or who became citizens of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renounce their previous citizenship — can remain dual citizens in the United States
There needs only ONE step that would supersede your whole TO-DO list and the ONLY Constitutional method:
DISMANTLE THE WELFARE STATE
Couple that with a return to a service model for schools and like (IE: no more ‘auto pay’ by property taxes) and it’s a win-win-win.
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.