Hmm…
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 — kindling 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 contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal (news, bio, voting record) 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 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."
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.
Critics of the legislation are calling it "wacko:"
"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."
The National Council of La Raza hardly a group to take seriously on this subject. They're borderline racist and take a stance on illegal immigration that can't really be described as anything other than being in favor of it.
That being said, I don't see why citizenship should be granted to children born in this country under false pretenses. The parents of children born in these circumstances shouldn't be rewarded for their underhanded tactics. Given that most of them are just having their children here in order to win themselves the benefits that go with living in this country - like free education, health care and other entitlements - it amounts to fraud. And a terrible burden on taxpayers to boot.
Here is the pertinent text of Rep. Deal's proposed legislation:
`(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United States shall be considered as `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' if–
`(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or
`(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.
That seems reasonable to me. It allows for citizenship for children born in our country to people here legally whild denying citizenship to children born to parents who are in this country illegally.
I really don't see anything controversial about this at all.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
As for calling La Raza a racist organization--you couldn't be more wrong. Essentially, your argument appears to be that 'La Raza' translates into 'The Race.' Of course, this ignores the history of the group--it was founded by mixed race (Native American Indians, Spanish, blacks, etc) groups in response to the bigotry of European Spaniards who had colonized Central and South America.
The literal translation also ignores the colloquiall meaning of 'La Raza' which means 'family.'
Of course, like books, the agenda of any group cannot be determined by a name but by their actions. Given that 'La Raza' has been at the forefront of civil rights for Hispanics--it appears Rob Port's assessment is a bigoted smear.
Please provide the precise constitutional clause that addresses children of illegal immigrants.
Grreg, the legislative branch can't pass laws that violate or contradict the Constitution. You have to amend the Constitution.
You really need to look up the 14th Amendment. It's right there in Section 1.
Okay disclaimer first...Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration.
That being said, a child can't be born under false pretenses...
Certainly you can understand a parents wish for their children to live a better life than they have. I have this wish for my own children. Can I understand why a Mexican national might think that by their child being a US citizen this could be come a reality, sure I can. I can't even blame them for it. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that this is different than past generations of Irish, German or any other countries immigrants and the way that the US viewed those children's births.
Let's face it, this administration and congress can't get together to tie their shoes on a regular basis, a Constitutional Amendment getting through seems remote to say the least.
So it is.
We will have to see how the USSC rules on it.
They can pass anything they want. Whether it will stand is another issue.
What other benefits do the illegal immigrants receive, they get to work in unsafe conditions, below minimum wage(even when paid at minimum wage, they are required to work overtime without overtime pay. (PS, this is legal for farmers getting a crop in). They also get the benefit of working for cash for under minimum wage.
Employers in the U.S., (including private citizens using this labor) now consider it a right to have this huge underpaid workforce.
There is no evidence it is benefiting anyone other than the employer and plenty of evidence it is harming the work status of legal immigrants and citizens.
I didn't have an opinion on the born here question. I guess I don't need one. The last thing we need is to ammend the constitution during these contentious times, everything but the laundry would be amended.
The idea of temporary workers sounds so attractive until you ask, who monitors the work conditions, who pays the health care, are temporary workers to be included in the social security system, pay income taxes,?
What about housing, currently the illegal immigrants are living in conditions that violate every housing standard ever written.