Thread: Immigrants' kids in GOP sights EDITORIAL

Immigrants' kids in GOP sights EDITORIAL
The New Mexican
Posted: Monday, December 20, 2010 - 12/21/10

For the millions of people living in this country illegally and doing lots of jobs our citizens won't do even in these high-unemployment times, the past weekend was a slap in the face — with more insult and injury on the way:

The Senate's Republicans, helped by a handful of Democrats fearful of xenophobe voters, carried out a filibuster against the Dream Act. It would have put children of illegal immigrants on track for legal residence if they were going to college or joined the military.

The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, and immigrant-rights groups had hoped this would be consolation, however slight, for Congress' failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

The bill is an acronym — the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would have applied to youngsters brought into the U.S. before age 16. Those of good moral character, with no real family ties to where they came from and graduating from high schools in the U.S., would have been eligible for "conditional permanent residency" by putting in two years in the military or four in college.

Instead, they'll remain illegal in the only homeland most of them know. Their families are here, so rounding them up and shipping them back to Mexico and other countries of origin makes neither sense nor offers any justice. As for their parents, they, like many of the affected youngsters, are valuable members of our nation's work force — living in limbo.

Republican leaders labeled the proposed law an amnesty of sorts — one they claimed would invite lots more illegals.

Having won one for bigotry, Repubs are turning their guns on our country's Constitution: the 14th Amendment's provision of "birthright citizenship." At the state-legislative level — starting with Arizona, claro — and by way of court action they hope will gain the Supreme Court's attention, they're engaging in games of semantics:

Among the amendment's language is this: "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."

The phrase they'll be picking on is "subject to the jurisdiction." Somehow the Arizona legislative leaders, mostly the same ones who passed the racial-profiling law last spring, figure that babies born here, and their moms, aren't subject to our laws. That's nuts; the reason they hide out from immigration officers is because la migra applies U.S. law and kicks them out of the country.

The Arizonans are recruiting counterparts in other states, hoping to pass matching laws saying — what? No birth certificates for children of illegals? Like Arizona's law telling cops to check the citizenship of whoever they stop, such discrimination would come to the courts' attention.

There's more than a century's worth of case law upholding the citizenship of people born here, regardless of mom's immigration status — but given today's high-court makeup, who'd be surprised if a majority pulled off a pinpoint pirouette and changed the national mind?

In all, an evil time for illegals — and likely to get worse, at least when it comes to their kids: If the Dream Act couldn't pass with today's Democratic Senate majority, chances of passage in the coming Congress, where Dems will outnumber Republicans by one, are nonexistent.

There's at least some hope for broader immigration reform, for which Senate leader Harry Reid promises to make another push. There's been bipartisan support for combinations of work permits and other forms of legalization, if even temporary, for people already here or wanting to come and work. But cooperation went out the window during this year's congressional campaigning.

Might it return? It's overdue.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinio ... GOP-sights

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Instead, they'll remain illegal in the only homeland most of them know. Their families are here, so rounding them up and shipping them back to Mexico and other countries of origin makes neither sense nor offers any justice. As for their parents, they, like many of the affected youngsters, are valuable members of our nation's work force — living in limbo.

Explain this to the 20million American's who's job have been stolen from them and their parents! Massive immigration sweep! Sweep the Nation!

The phrase they'll be picking on is "subject to the jurisdiction." Somehow the Arizona legislative leaders, mostly the same ones who passed the racial-profiling law last spring, figure that babies born here, and their moms, aren't subject to our laws.

Everyone, anywhere in the world, is subject to the local law. Apparently the framers of this line: "subject to the jurisdiction." falsely believed that later representatives in government wouldn't abuse the subtle variations of the English Language, OUR LANGUAGE.

There is more than enough proof that the "Original Intent" of the amendment is not the BS these people are pushing today.

What I find even scarier though is the fact I no longer have faith in the SCOTUS to apply "Original Intent" as has always been intended when matters of the constitution are before the court.