If no birthright citizenship, would illegal immigration slow
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
MSNBC/Associated Press has an article that I'll have snippets from below detailing efforts to end "birthright citizenship," or at least the application of it for children of illegal immigrants.
For those that don't understand what birthright citizenship is, the article details it with following definition:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
... which is basically taken to mean that even if you are born of illegal immigrants, as long as you are born on U.S.A. soil, you are automatically a citizen of the U.S.A.
The original article provides some of the history of the practice and act of "birthright citizenship." It actually reminds me a bit of something that Gideon was ranting for in a recent article, the requirement for laws passsed in or related to war-time practices to include sunset provisions so that the laws wouldn't go on forever and would eventually be automatically phased out. Such might have been a good idea for the law that now seems to be getting twisted in favor of illegal immigrants that are flocking to the U.S.A. to have their children so that those children will automatically become citizens of the U.S.A.
Some in Congress are trying to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, saying that the practice was never intended to be used as it has in recent history. Of course, the history of the practice is probably that some judge, some where, decided a long time ago that even if the law didn't specifically mean illegal aliens, it couldn't exclude them, and therefore it's been misapplied to the point we have today.
Whether or not Congress ends the practice by federal statute, rather than ammending the Constitution (which will most likely end up being the requirement, since lawyers for immigrant groups will surely not take changes to the practice without complaint), the bigger question is would ending the practice really help stop or slow illegal immigration to this country.
I could have chosen a different article on a similar topic to blog on, as there was also an article released today detailing how some illegal immigrants have been dating border patrol agents even while in this country illegally. Either way, as usual, it's obvious we continue to have lots of problems protecting our borders and keeping illegal immigrants out.
Can the situation be made better, and would ending birthright citizenship really be a good step along the way?
Article snippet follows. Headline is linked. Please see original for complete story.
‘Birthright citizenship’ debate set to begin
Battle expected over bid to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegals
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.
House bill dies without vote
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal 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.
“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.”
‘Red meat for conservatives’
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes 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 better job of educating people why it’s wrong.”
... more at linked article
For those that don't understand what birthright citizenship is, the article details it with following definition:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
... which is basically taken to mean that even if you are born of illegal immigrants, as long as you are born on U.S.A. soil, you are automatically a citizen of the U.S.A.
The original article provides some of the history of the practice and act of "birthright citizenship." It actually reminds me a bit of something that Gideon was ranting for in a recent article, the requirement for laws passsed in or related to war-time practices to include sunset provisions so that the laws wouldn't go on forever and would eventually be automatically phased out. Such might have been a good idea for the law that now seems to be getting twisted in favor of illegal immigrants that are flocking to the U.S.A. to have their children so that those children will automatically become citizens of the U.S.A.
Some in Congress are trying to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, saying that the practice was never intended to be used as it has in recent history. Of course, the history of the practice is probably that some judge, some where, decided a long time ago that even if the law didn't specifically mean illegal aliens, it couldn't exclude them, and therefore it's been misapplied to the point we have today.
Whether or not Congress ends the practice by federal statute, rather than ammending the Constitution (which will most likely end up being the requirement, since lawyers for immigrant groups will surely not take changes to the practice without complaint), the bigger question is would ending the practice really help stop or slow illegal immigration to this country.
I could have chosen a different article on a similar topic to blog on, as there was also an article released today detailing how some illegal immigrants have been dating border patrol agents even while in this country illegally. Either way, as usual, it's obvious we continue to have lots of problems protecting our borders and keeping illegal immigrants out.
Can the situation be made better, and would ending birthright citizenship really be a good step along the way?
Article snippet follows. Headline is linked. Please see original for complete story.
‘Birthright citizenship’ debate set to begin
Battle expected over bid to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegals
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.
House bill dies without vote
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal 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.
“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.”
‘Red meat for conservatives’
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes 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 better job of educating people why it’s wrong.”
... more at linked article
And I decided to check out what was going on and about and *ding* there it was.
Guess, I'll have to rethink my comments a little before I post it.