Thread: NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES / BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HR1940

I believe there are already 40 House members on board with this bill. We need to email all the House members and pressure them to get on board, too.

STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
by taking away the incentives;

STOP EMPLOYERS FROM HIRING ILLEGAL WORKERS.

Enforce the immigration laws we have.

They will not come, they will leave if they cannot work without legal documents. Then bring in legal immigrants to replace them and hire american workers,.


REPEAL THE AUTOMATIC BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

The anchor that bring them here and allowed them to stay will be gone.

They will not come and there will be nothing to anchor them here.

As it stands now, there is not an illegal alien that does not have an anchor.

If this is not done, nothing will work. No amount of immigration reform will work. It has not worked before and it will not work now under a different name.

If they can get across the border and work, they will come.

If they can produce an "anchor" baby they will come and we cannot and will not deport them.

It is a simple as that.

Originally Posted by CostaMesaMan

We do need to address the ANCHORE BABY issue...and while this is a key issue in the immigration reform...it really can't be addressed as part of an immigration bill because it is a Constitutional Admendment. It is VERY difficult to change admendments.

So, while I think this needs to be ELIMINATED...I think we really need to attack this as a seperate issue from the Immigration Reform. Once we have the Immigration Reform that will secure the borders, build ALL the fence, eliminate welfare and employment insentives, HEAVY fines to employers who employ illegals, etc...we can the turn all of our focus and energy towards eliminating the 14th Amendment!

Maybe we can do these things simultaneously...but that is going to take a LOT of energy and LOTS of people to be united to get it done that way. BUT...It could happen!

CMM, I agree. One battle at a time, but if we win the biggest battle of immigration, then I really believe we will be effective with 100% of our focus on eliminating automatic birthright citizenship.

The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 380,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.

"Anchor Babies"

The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.

While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.

Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as 'anchors' to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/bir ... enship.htm

RETHINKING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

by Ron Paul

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

October 3, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

Does anyone have the list of 40 House members who have signed on to this bill?

This lists 70 co sponsors tinybobidaho in 2005 - this year 2007 list I will look

[quote]
‘Birthright citizenship’ debate set to begin

Battle expected over bid to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegals

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:07 p.m. CT Dec 26, 2005

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 citizenshipâ€

This says 83 co sponsors in 2006

Birthright Citizenship Under Question as Immigration Debate Continues

USA TODAY
Wendy Koch

April 26, 2006

Deportation split Julie Santos' family in 2001, forcing her husband, an illegal immigrant, to return to Mexico while she and their two U.S.-born children remained in her hometown of Chicago.
George Santos had worked and paid taxes in the USA for 15 years but is barred from ever returning because he used false identity papers to claim he was a U.S. citizen.
"He has said, 'Continue with your life and forget about me,' but I can't," says Julie Santos, 40, a real estate agent and secretary of the Latino Family Unity Campaign. She calls often and, whenever possible, visits him in Mexico with their 10-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter.
About 2 million families nationwide face a similarly gut-wrenching risk of deportation because the children are U.S.-born citizens but at least one parent is an illegal immigrant, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. If deported, the parent must decide whether to leave the kids with relatives in the USA or take them along.
Many "mixed status" families are created because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants automatic citizenship to all children born in the country except those of foreign diplomats.
"It's a nearly absolute birthright citizen, and in that way, it's unusual. But it's not exceptional," says Peter Spiro, international law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.
He says most countries have tighter limits on citizenship, but several Western Hemisphere countries, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, also grant it to all children born on their land. He says other countries are adopting broader U.S.-style language.
As Congress returns from a two-week recess and again wrestles with the thorny issue of immigration reform, some House Republicans have proposed limiting birthright citizenship.
Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., and 83 GOP co-sponsors are pushing a bill that would restrict automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and legal residents. He says he doesn't expect the measure to be included in any broader reform package this year but hopes it generates debate.
Mixed-status families pose "a huge problem," says Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's bill. They "complicate an already complicated issue."
At least 3.1 million U.S.-born children live in families headed by an illegal resident, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates. They account for two-thirds of all children of illegal immigrants.
Deal argues that birthright citizenship is a magnet for many illegal immigrants who use "anchor babies" to establish a U.S. foothold. These U.S.-born children are eligible for government services, and at 21, can petition for their parents' residency.
Deal says the 14th Amendment was not intended to include these children.
Historians say the Amendment was ratified in 1868 to ensure the citizenship of freed slaves. "There's no question" that it would have excluded children of illegal immigrants had there been many illegal workers at the time, says Peter Schuck, professor at Yale Law School and author of Citizens, Strangers and In-Betweens.
The amendment has been misinterpreted for more than a century, says John Eastman, director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute. He argues that its authors, in granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," meant only those not owing allegiance to a foreign power, not simply those born on its soil.
Whatever its intent, birthright citizenship has been widely accepted as applying to all children born in the USA.
"There are good arguments" for and against this citizenship, says Schuck. He says some illegal immigrants may take advantage of it, but "it does not lead to a multigenerational, long-term population of people who are not citizens."
Schuck says Germany has had big problems because it has many immigrants, particularly from Turkey, living their entire lives there who weren't voting citizens and felt alienated. As a result, he says, Germany and France have broadened their citizenship laws to include more immigrants.
Spiro says children of illegal immigrants will likely spend their entire lives in the USA. By depriving them of citizenship, he says, "you'd have a significant portion of the population being legally subordinated on an inter-generational basis."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., member of the House Judiciary Committee, says Deal's bill would create more illegal residents. "It's unconstitutional. It creates a larger underclass, and it's unenforceable," he says. "It does nothing to secure our borders." For decades, the undocumented parents in "mixed status" families have been deported. Some, citing the plight of their U.S.-born kids, have been spared.
Immigration judges decide whether a parent qualifies for a waiver on a "case by base basis," says Ernestine Fobbs, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fiscal 2005, she says more than 162,000 people were deported from the USA, but it's unclear how many had U.S.-born children or spouses.
Waivers are "much less frequent than in the past," says John Trasvina, interim president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. He says Congress has tightened the criteria since 1996, giving judges less discretion to stay a deportation.
Currently, deportation can be suspended for illegal immigrants only if they have lived in the USA longer than 10 years, have no criminal record and can prove their removal would cause "extremely unusual hardship" to a close relative with legal status.
Julie Santos says her husband, George, owned a home and worked full time as a furniture refinisher in Chicago. She says he did not seek legal residency because he did not want to admit to his employer that he was in the country illegally.
They considered moving the family to Mexico, but economic conditions are too tough.
She tries to keep him connected to the family, but it's difficult.
"Now sometimes it feels I'm talking about a ghost," Julie Santos says.
To see more of USAToday.com, or to subscribe, go to http://www.usatoday.com
© Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/educa ... 6081.shtml

I do not know if this list is current - we could call his office for accurate number - 83 is a large number of co sponsors from the list above

Bill Overview

Sponsor:
Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]

Cosponsors

Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Richard Baker [R-LA]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R-FL]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. David Davis [R-TN]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
Rep. Robin Hayes [R-NC]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R-TX]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R-CA]
Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Tom Price [R-GA]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

Last Action: Apr 19, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Full Text: View Full Text of Bill


Committee Assignments

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940

Here is another list from Thomas: 51 listed here in 2007 -

support is there and this is a MAJOR problem (birthright citizenship) - ending this would be astronomical in dollars saved and the clarification of citizenship given at birth would result in one magnet eliminated for a large portion of illegal aliens

H.R.1940

Title: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9]

(introduced 4/19/2007)

Cosponsors (51)

Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COSPONSORS(51), ALPHABETICAL

[followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 5/9/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 5/9/2007
Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 5/1/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/19/2007
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 5/3/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 5/1/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 6/5/2007
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 4/25/2007
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 5/9/2007
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/1/2007
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 4/25/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 4/25/2007
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 4/26/2007
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 5/3/2007
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 4/25/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 5/23/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 6/5/2007
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 5/9/2007
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 4/26/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 4/25/2007
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/5/2007
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 5/3/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 4/26/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 5/24/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 5/1/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 4/25/2007
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 4/26/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/17/2007
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/9/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 4/19/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 5/3/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 5/9/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 4/25/2007
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 6/5/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 5/17/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/5/2007
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 5/17/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 4/25/2007
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 5/1/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 5/3/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 4/25/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 4/25/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 5/1/2007
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/9/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/25/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 5/1/2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 01940:@@@P

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h1940: