printThis is one initiative which, like auditing and eliminating the Federal Reserve Bank, should be campaigned for with the utmost urgency. During his presidential run, Rep. Ron Paul was alone in promising to do away with birthright citizenship (and amnesty and welfare benefits for illegals). Roy Beck of NumbersUSA returns to this crucial issue in a debate in BusinessWeek:
Maternity tourism is just the beginning of the silliness of birthright citizenship that goes to the babies of foreign students, temporary foreign workers, international travelers–and the millions who break the law to criminally enter this country.
All told, federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant. This is a huge impediment to efforts to stabilize U.S. population to allow for environmental sustainability. And it is a great incentive for more illegal immigration.
Each of these babies becomes an anchor who retards deportation of unlawfully present parents–and who eventually will be an anchor for entire families and villages as chain migration leads to the immigration of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
Birthright citizenship is an antiquated practice that has been abandoned by nearly all wealthy nations and emerging nations (recently India and Indonesia) and by the majority of poor nations.
The Supreme Court has ruled only that the Constitution requires babies of legal immigrants be U.S. citizens. It is time to join the modern world, pass H.R. 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009), and limit citizenship to babies who have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal immigrant.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
Well, my thoughts on this are influenced by the Hebrew Bible. The Lord is concerned there about widows, orphans, the poor and ALIENS. That said, who says they should be given political rights?
REPUBLICAN George W. Bush didn’t even dispute the American citizenship of Esam Hamdi, born in Louisiana to Saudis – who left the US at age 6 months, never returned, spoke English, claimed citizenship, paid taxes, etc. The 14th Amendment says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” – yet the pusillanimous Bush would rather concoct a phony term like “enemy combatant” rather than challenge this Saudi’s “citizenship”.
When Proposition 187 passed in California and it was struck down by a Court of Appeals for interfering with Federal Law, NEITHER Democrat Gray Davis nor Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger chose to appeal it. Nor, in fact, will the federal government pass a NATIONAL Proposition 187, which would prevent TRESSPASSERS from using governmental services even though such a law would be both wise and constitutional. Both parties are guilty of debasing the country. Forcing real citizens like myself to schlep around with “Real ID” and answer to a TSA-like Gestapo is a non-cure to the disease caused in the first place by the corrupt politicians.
Ron Paul has the right idea – which, sadly, has a snowball’s chance in (Capitol) hell.
“All told, federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.”
Which federal law is that? 8 USC 1401 lists persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States. Subsection (a) reads, “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” echoing the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause. Howard Sutherland gave us a detailed explanation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in his 2001 VDARE.com article “Weigh Anchor!” Obviously, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause never meant to extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
I can’t find anything in the U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations that declares citizens of children born to illegal aliens to be U.S. citizens. Is there some obscure bureaucratic regulation that has eluded me? Is it just a silly custom made up by some Democratic appointee? Perhaps we don’t need any new legislation, just a tiny bit of common sense in our ruling class. Of course, to get that, we’d probably need to shoot them all and start over.
Correction: the first sentence of the last paragraph above should read, “I can’t find anything in the U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations that declares children born to illegal aliens to be U.S. citizens.”
Since we are on the subject, is it possible to strip the members of the treason lobby of their citizenship and deport them all to Mexico?
George Bush is a globalist and elitist. As such he does not care about the historic American nation.
Gringo Malo needs to ask himself why George Bush used to fly the Mexican flag on the official White House website. And he also needs to ask himself why Bush chose a bigoted Mexican American by the name of Alberto Gonzales to be his AG. Gonzales is a descendant of illegal aliens and belongs to, or used to belong to, MAPA. http://www.mapa.org/ MAPA is an organization of racist revanchists. It is also affiliated with La Raza.
Bush, Condi Rice, Cheney, et al, want a hemispheric version of the European Union.
Now do you have a clue as to what is going on?
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, “D’oh!”
What does George Bush (either of them) have to do with me, or with my query as to which federal law makes citizens of the children of illegal aliens?
Gringo Malo- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html, Should answer your question.
Out of curiosity and because of things I’ve heard from friends, I did a brief search on retirement in Mexico. Over three million “Gringos” live in Mexico, mostly in ‘communities’ just like home. Plus I think there are even more people (Snowbirds) that spend their winters there. The cost of living is cheaper; most prescribed drugs are over the counter and cheap. Hospital room in a private hospital is about $35.00 a day. Dr. and Dentist’s charge one half to one third less. Taxes balance out at a little less than the US. No more bureaucracy than here, more personal freedom. Jobs are scarce, but if you’re retired, that’s not a priority. There is even Walmart stores there. Send the treason lobby to Canada, leave the fun in the sun to us. The best revenge is getting even.
Robert – Perhaps you didn’t notice the link to 8 USC 1401 in my first post above. Perhaps you didn’t notice the link attorney Howard Sutherland’s article, which explains at length why the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never meant to apply to children of illegal aliens. It’s a misinterpretation of 8 USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to any child born here regardless of circumstances. That misinterpretation must be written somewhere, in some other law, regulation, attorney general’s opinion, or old INS department memo. I was just wondering which one.
Sorry Gringo (Seems strange to use that word as a proper name; since that was the insult when I was a kid in New Mexico) You’re right, I did miss your reference to 8 USC 1401. I need to be more careful. California voters amended its Constitution to refuse single gender marriage, the CA. Supreme Court said, since you did not say, man and woman, marriage between single genders is ok. Leading to prop. 8. I think that is the same case here. Ilana is right in that we need an amendment or law that clearly defines birth citizenship, including a sentence stating that mere birth is insufficient. I expect that the present court would pull a California snow job anyway.