Thread: Preserve right of citizenship at birth

This lib-idiot, OBL reporter quotes a 14-year old anchor baby as the basis for his article? Are you kidding me?!?...blood pressure alert!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserve right of citizenship at birth
Fix failed immigration system. Don't abandon American values.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs. ... /opinion03
September 16, 2007

What if the United States stopped automatically granting citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants?

A 14-year-old Des Moines girl, the only member of her family who is a U.S. citizen, finds it hard to imagine what her life would be like if her mother had not walked across the Mexican border several years before she was born. She does, however, see what her undocumented older brothers and cousins face: They cannot get a driver's license, qualify for federal financial aid for college or pursue a career. They could be deported at any time.

She calls the idea of withholding citizenship from anyone born in the United States "absurd."

Yet such proposals are out there.

In April, Republican U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia introduced H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would limit who becomes an American at birth. Children would qualify only if they had a parent who is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an illegal immigrant who is actively serving in the military. Ninety members have signed on as co-sponsors, including Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

Or go to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's Web site. Under issues, the Texas congressman says: "End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, their incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

A prize for pregnant moms?

Critics of birthright citizenship believe it's a magnet. Mothers sneak into this country to deliver U.S. citizens. The "anchor babies" qualify for benefits, such as government health insurance. When the babies become adults, they could legally bring close relatives to live here. The critics hold up ending birthright citizenship as the solution to the nation's illegal immigration crisis.

It is not the answer, not as a practical measure and not as a measure of the nation's character.

If birthright citizenship ended tomorrow, desperately poor people from Latin America and elsewhere still would slip into the United States for jobs. They still would have children. Because the children would not be U.S. citizens, a permanent underclass would grow, with no allegiance to the United States. The children would have no hope of becoming well-educated contributors to the U.S. economy, which needs ambitious young workers to be globally competitive and to support Social Security for older Americans.

Doing away with birthright citizenship would compound the failures of the U.S. immigration system, which have resulted in an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living here. They are vulnerable to abuse by employers and crime in their neighborhoods. They are afraid to fully participate in the life of their communities.

A better approach to reform

The answer to the nation's immigration crisis is enforcing strong border security while raising U.S. immigration quotas to reasonable levels and creating a broad guest-worker program with safeguards against exploitation. Reform must include amnesty for current illegal immigrants and a path to citizenship, if they have a good record otherwise and pay fines.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that describes itself as "pro-immigrant, low immigration," estimates illegal-immigrant mothers have 400,000 babies a year in the United States, about 10 percent of all births. In Iowa, more than 3 percent of births are to illegal immigrant mothers, said Steve Camarota, the center's research director.

The state and nation cannot afford to write them off.

Principle embedded in past

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section I, ratified in 1868: "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 amendment originally was adopted to assure African-Americans citizenship in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Today, it stands for the nation's commitment to treating everyone born on U.S. soil as equal, a defining principle of American democracy.

Legal scholars can debate the intent of the framers of the citizenship clause, but revoking birthright citizenship in the 21st century would come dangerously close to enslaving children born to illegal immigrants. It would be a betrayal of bedrock American values.

Such proposals are truly absurd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS:

Reader Comment Posted by: DenisL
on Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:11 am

I agree completely that birthright citizenship should be maintained. Thank goodness that it is part of the Constitution and can not easily be changed by politicians dealing with the consequences of their own failed policies.

I suspect it is under attack, as the editorial states because we have a problem dealing with illegal immigration, and if the truth be told the idiocies of even our current legal immigration policies. No country in the world makes it so hard for people to come to their lands to work productively. Productive work is a positive sum game that benefits everyone. I am amazed that hard working people can not readily and easily get visas to come to do jobs that need doing and that others can not visit family members that need hugs.

This issue of extreme difficulties in obtaining temporary visas cuts across all classes, socioeconomic groups and intellectual levels from field hands, to university students, to tourists, to family of US citizens, to high tech workers in our biotech industry, to physicians, and many others.

Most people love their homes and will return to them if they can earn enough money to do so. We will actually trap people here if we solve the problem with a fence rather than making it easy for people to freely associate with either family members or their employers via easing the visa restrictions. Why would anyone want to stop people from freely interacting with one another? Freedom of Association is one of the bed rocks of our country! Why be mean and stop it? Long term Mexico needs to fix its economic and political system. We can debate why that is not happening, but for now let's not compound the problem instead we should try to do the right and human thing.

I agree with Ron Paul and Steve King on most things. However, on the issue of changing birth right citizenship, a simple rule that everyone can understand unlike most of the gobbledygook out of Washington, I think that they and the other 90 Congress critters are literally throwing the baby out with the immigration panic "bath water". I hope that we do NOT make things worse by allowing the passage of H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007.

ACTUALLY WHITE NON-HISPANIC WOMEN HAVE REPRODUCED AT THE REPLACEMENT RATE. THIS INCLUDES THE BOOMER GENERATION.

THE ASSERTION THAT WE NEED TO OVER POPULATE TO HAVE ENOUGH WORKERS OR TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT TRUE, IMO. THE NEED TO OVER POPULATE SERVES THE CORPORATIONS WHO WANT A LARGE POOL OF WORKERS TO DEPRESS WAGES.

WHERE IT IS TRUE THAT HISPANIC WOMEN REPRODUCE AT A HIGHER RATE, THIS DOES NOT SERVE SOCIETY, IT SERVES BIG BUSINESS.

WHEN THE BABY BOOMERS CAME OF AGE AND WOMEN ENTERED THE WORK FORCE, THIS PROVIDED BB WITH A VERY LARGE COMPETITIVE POOL OF LABOR WHICH BEGAN THE WAGE DEPRESSION PROCESS. TO KEEP THIS MILL GOING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WAS ALLOWED TO SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL.

WE AS A NATION AND A SOCIETY DO NOT NEED TO OVER POPULATE TO REMAIN STRONG. BIG BUSINESS NEEDS IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO OVER POPULATE TO SUPPORT SS. THE REPRODUCTION OF NON-HISPANIC WHITE WOMEN, PLUS THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE AMONG BLACK WOMEN WILL BE ENOUGH. PLUS DONT FORGET THERE ARE ALREADY MANY US BORN HISPANIC WOMEN. THIS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY.

THE ASSERTION BY BB THAT WE NEED IMMIGRATION TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY IS A LIE.

The real answer: dry up the jobs for illegals and stop undercutting America's working poor.

THE ASSERTION THAT WE NEED TO OVER POPULATE TO HAVE ENOUGH WORKERS OR TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT TRUE, IMO. THE NEED TO OVER POPULATE SERVES THE CORPORATIONS WHO WANT A LARGE POOL OF WORKERS TO DEPRESS WAGES.

And where does it stop? Has any one of those high-powered agencies of our government ever computed exactly how many citizens this land called the U.S. can reasonably support? At what point will our resources be depleted? How long will it be until our cities are teeming with people like those in India and China where a sanitary infrastructure cannot be supported?

And where does it stop? Has any one of those high-powered agencies of our government ever computed exactly how many citizens this land called the U.S. can reasonably support? At what point will our resources be depleted? How long will it be until our cities are teeming with people like those in India and China where a sanitary infrastructure cannot be supported?

ALL VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. THEY DONT CARE. BIG BUSINESS IS TOO BUSY SALIVATING OVER THE PROSPECT OF OF AN OVER POPULATED NATION PROVIDING THEM WITH A SLAVE MARKET. LOOK WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING TO OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND OUR LABOR MARKET. THE DANGER SIGNS ARE ALREADY THERE.

There's a comment section after this article. You have to register, but I think it's worth it.,

THANKS REAL....GOING THERE NOW.