Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AngryTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    844

    WAPO: Denying Citizenship For Illegal children is A Bad Idea

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... on/columns

    By Edward Schumacher-Matos
    Sunday, June 27, 2010

    They are called "anchor babies" -- the children born in the United States of illegal immigrant parents -- and pressure is growing to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment so as to deny them automatic citizenship.

    Ninety-one members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill to do just that. It was submitted in the House last year by Georgia Republican Nathan Deal. Backers of Arizona's harsh anti-immigrant measure are drafting legislation that would withhold birth certificates from these babies. Similar measures are being proposed in other states.

    The United States is one of the few countries in the world that bestows "birthright citizenship." Opponents of the practice say that it induces immigrants to enter the country illegally with the devious strategy of having a baby as a citizen "anchor," through which the rest of the family can petition to stay and get access to American jobs and welfare.

    But ending birthright citizenship might be the worst idea of the immigration debate. It strikes at the core of American identity, punishes all Americans by requiring them to prove their citizenship, overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings, and accomplishes next to nothing in resolving illegal immigration.

    The 14th Amendment states: "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 abrogationists would reinterpret the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They argue that unauthorized immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that Congress, acting in 1866 at the end of the Civil War, meant for the amendment to apply only to recently freed slaves.

    Go back, however, and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator, for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit "trespass" within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

    But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.
    ad_icon

    The Supreme Court has regularly upheld birthright citizenship, most recently in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, in which all nine justices agreed that the 14th Amendment applied to legal and illegal immigrants alike, and a majority ruled that Texas had to offer public school education to children of illegal immigrants.

    Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.

    As West Point professor Margaret Stock says: "The government would have to adjudicate the citizenship status of every child born within U.S. borders based on the exceedingly complex rules of derivative citizenship, or citizenship by blood. Currently, [it] takes more than a year to make such determinations, and the process is expensive and fraught with error."

    The abrogationists confuse the historical ecosystem on the U.S.-Mexican border with illegal immigrants in general. Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.

    A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule. Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy. The parents are not eligible for welfare or for citizenship until after the child turns 21.

    Improved enforcement has dramatically slowed the flow of illegal immigration. What's needed now is comprehensive immigration reform to finish the job. Talk of birthright citizenship is an unwise diversion.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    508

    Re: WAPO: Denying Citizenship For Illegal children is A Bad

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTX
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504393.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

    By Edward Schumacher-Matos
    Sunday, June 27, 2010

    . Backers of Arizona's harsh anti-immigrant measure are drafting legislation that would withhold birth certificates from these babies. Similar measures are being proposed in other states.
    LOL. They're distorting the truth again. Typical morons. Here's how it should read:

    "Backers of Arizona's long overdue anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant measure are drafting legislation that would withhold unjustified birth certificates from babies smuggled in wombs. Similar intelligent measures are being proposed by smart people in other states so that someday the s* doesn't hit the fan and the country becomes overwhelmed with illegals everywhere depleting resources at the expense of the American taxpayer in order to satisfy corporate greed."

    These types of stupid articles always make it sound like we, the people, are against immigrants and even babies. They use it for effect. Like I said, morons.

    Their version of "immigrants" = "illegals from Mexico"

    Again, morons.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,262
    Edward Schumacher-Matos

    <img src=http://www.worldboston.org/GD_Schumacher-Matos.jpg align=left>
    <-------------------{{{{


    Edward Schumacher-Matos
    CEO, Editorial Director and Founder, Meximerica Media Inc.


    Edward Schumacher Matos, born in Colombia of Colombian and Panamanian parents, has more than 25 years of newspaper experience.

    Before founding Meximerica Media, he was the founding editor and associate publisher of The Wall Street Journal Americas, a highly successful section of The Wall Street Journal in Spanish and Portuguese that is distributed daily inside leading newspapers throughout Latin America. He was also responsible for beginning and publishing similar sections in Spain and Portugal. Schumacher Matos joined the Journal in 1993 to design and launch the Spanish-language editions.

    He began his career as a reporter at the Patriot Ledger in Quincy, Massachusetts, and then moved to the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he was part of a team that in 1979 won the Pulitzer Prize for public service. For nearly a decade afterwards, Schumacher Matos worked at The New York Times, first as the York City economic development reporter and later as bureau chief in Buenos Aires and in Madrid, respectively. He left the Times in 1988 to write a book related to Vietnam. In 1991, he returned to New York as director of the Spanish Institute, a private cultural and public affairs institute dedicated to U.S. and Spanish relations.

    Schumacher Matos was the editor and a contributor to the book, The New U.S. Presidency, published by the University of Alcala Press in 1989. He contributed the chapter, "Spain and Latin America," to the book, Europe and Latin America in the World Economy, published by Lynne Reiner in 1995. He has written extensively as well for The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs and other publications.

    Schumacher Matos is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Americas Society in New York. He is on the board of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, Instituto de Empresa, Graduate Business School in Madrid, Maria Cabot Moors Awards at Columbia University, the International Finance Center at Pace University and Vanderbilt Magazine. He was formely on the board of the Inter American Press Association, the Scudder First Iberian Fund and the Royal Chamber Music Foundation in Madrid. As special advisor to Spain's Principe de Asturias Foundation, he negotiated and relocated the Moscow Virtuosi Orchestra from Russia to Spain.

    Schumacher Matos received a bachelor's degree in literature and politics from Vanderbilt University and a master's degree in international economics and politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. As a Fulbright Fellow in Japan, he did independent research on political relations in Northeast Asia in 1974, and he was a U.S.-Spain Bi-National Commission Fellow in Madrid in 1988. He also served in the U.S. Army and was awarded a Bronze Star for meritorious service in Vietnam.
    I support enforcement and see its lack as bad for the 3rd World as well. Remittances are now mostly spent on consumption not production assets. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,757
    "What's needed now is comprehensive immigration reform to finish the job. Talk of birthright citizenship is an unwise diversion."



    This last line invalidates the whole article

    ANYTHING calling for amnesty is just more la raza,lib drivel

  5. #5
    Senior Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,262
    The number of people coming here illegally with families from the border areas is realitively low. Much more come from an area composed of six states which are located north and north west of Mexico City a lot are from the Bajio. This map from Atlantic magazine shows it well.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... tion/5725/

    <img src=http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/coma/images/issues/200704/mexico-map.gif>
    I support enforcement and see its lack as bad for the 3rd World as well. Remittances are now mostly spent on consumption not production assets. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835
    Ending Birthright Citizenship would be one of the best things that this nation could do. Illegal aliens sponge off their U. S. born children, using them for entitlements, and they give them their own names, then use their social security numbers. So they get false legality through stealing their own child's social security number.

    We here the constant cries of separation from their U.S. born children. Loophole after loophole for illegal aliens.

    91 names listed, there should be more supporting this, in both the House and the Senate. The anchor would be ripped away when birthright citizenship is ended. Contact your representatives to end this magnet.

    Psalm 139:14
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  7. #7
    Senior Member uniteasone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    4,638
    But ending birthright citizenship might be the worst idea of the immigration debate. It strikes at the core of American identity, punishes all Americans by requiring them to prove their citizenship, overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings, and accomplishes next to nothing in resolving illegal immigration.
    So making changes to our laws, or in this case the Constitution,would be a worse idea then the slow death of this country to a level of third world economy and living standard
    "When you have knowledge,you have a responsibility to do better"_ Paula Johnson

    "I did then what I knew to do. When I knew better,I did better"_ Maya Angelou

  8. #8
    Senior Member Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Mexico aka Aztlan
    Posts
    7,055
    He means it would be bad for his business.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Senior Member vistalad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    3,036

    Re: WAPO: Denying Citizenship For Illegal children is A Bad

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTX
    By Edward Schumacher-Matos

    The 14th Amendment states: "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 abrogationists would reinterpret the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They argue that unauthorized immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that Congress, acting in 1866 at the end of the Civil War, meant for the amendment to apply only to recently freed slaves.

    The Supreme Court has regularly upheld birthright citizenship, most recently in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, in which all nine justices agreed that the 14th Amendment applied to legal and illegal immigrants alike, and a majority ruled that Texas had to offer public school education to children of illegal immigrants.
    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

    Our problem with anchor babies results from the Supreme Court ignoring the explanation of the 14th Amendment's actual intent.

  10. #10
    Senior Member tiredofapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    1,048

    Re: WAPO: Denying Citizenship For Illegal children is A Bad

    Quote Originally Posted by vistalad
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTX
    By Edward Schumacher-Matos

    The 14th Amendment states: "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 abrogationists would reinterpret the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They argue that unauthorized immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that Congress, acting in 1866 at the end of the Civil War, meant for the amendment to apply only to recently freed slaves.

    The Supreme Court has regularly upheld birthright citizenship, most recently in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, in which all nine justices agreed that the 14th Amendment applied to legal and illegal immigrants alike, and a majority ruled that Texas had to offer public school education to children of illegal immigrants.
    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

    Our problem with anchor babies results from the Supreme Court ignoring the explanation of the 14th Amendment's actual intent.
    EXACTLY! ...And the crux of this and future misinterpretations is and will be the "living document" philosophy.

    Diverting from the original intent of the language and the law dissolves the very foundation and fabric of this society.

    Of course that is a fundamental prerequisite to the reformation strategy currently underway, and ultimately necessary to forge a new one world government.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •