Citizenship by Birthright Up for Debate

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060522/ap_on_re_us/immigration_divided_families;_ylt=Atj6WQWTG0duT0cqIbdrYU2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Citizenship by Birthright Up for Debate

By GIOVANNA DELL'ORTO, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago

NORCROSS, Ga. - Laila Montezuma was 16 when she sneaked across the Rio Grande from Mexico with her mother, only to be abandoned by the smuggler paid to get them into the United States. They had to hire another "coyote" to reach Houston.


But Montezuma's own daughter will be spared those struggles. Even if Montezuma and her husband are both deported for being illegal immigrants, little Alma could eventually return to enjoy the opportunities her parents sought here.

"She's not going to have to fight for anything for the simple fact that she was born here," Montezuma said as her infant daughter played in a waiting room at a pediatrics clinic in suburban Atlanta.

About 2 million families face the risk of being split up because the children are U.S.-born citizens but the parents are illegal immigrants. At least one lawmaker has proposed ending citizenship by birthright, restricting automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Never happen

Would take a constitutional amendment to change citizenship birthright

[havocmom]

4. It'll be the carrot to lead the masses into accepting changes

and soon only babies born to special privlidged rich folk will have citizenship/
Our scions will just have the national debt and no rights the way it's going.

Rights only for those who can afford to buy them in the not to distant future.

[FreakinDJ]

14. have to be ratified by all 50 states - NO GOING TO HAPPEN

Don't know why some are so anxious to bite at this Non- News News story because it ain't never going to happen

[havocmom]

22. All 50 or only 2/3?

Still waiting on the ERA myself. But this issue would probably play better in many places where they still don't wanna grant women equal rights. And as more focus is put on getting GOP control of state houses and gov mansions, it is more likely something like this could pass in many states.

The majority of people in South Dakota are firmly AGAINST the ban on abortions that passed their state house. Do not underestimate the importance of local races! Much rests on the outcome of small things in states with small populations.

[tsuki]

25. Doesn't it have to pass the Senate first, by 3/4?

[havocmom]

29. Yep, Senate first then goes to states to ratify

My daughter was a tot when ERA started down the process. She is not a tot anymore, and still does not have equal protection under law.

Am afraid an amendment restricting rights will have better chance than an amendment enhancing rights had. Seems the masses have been convinced rights are not important.

I fear for our grandchildren...

[FreakinDJ]

33. Your making a huge leap of logic

Not a snow ball's chance in Hell that amendment would be ratified

[havocmom]

35. Wish I had your confidence. Who thought torture would be accepted?

Like I said, it seems much easier to RESTRICT rights than to expand the numbers of people who get equal rights.

[yellowcanine]

98. Ack. You are making a horrible grammatical error. Please stop.

I hate when people confuse pronouns.

It is:
"You are" making a leap of logic. "Your" logic is faulty.

And don't get me started on "there", "their" and "they are".

Not to mention "it's" and its.

[tsuki]

86. I remember the days collecting signatures for the ERA in the

1970s. The biggest whackos who argued against it with me were women. I never understood that. Still don't.

[serryjw]

117. 38 states

n/t

[jody]

44. delete

[struggle4progress]

95. BushCo has already tried to do this with "PATRIOT II"

Interested Persons Memo: Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," also known as "PATRIOT Act II" (2/14/2003)

... Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of "terrorism" and "terrorist organization" or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501) ...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17203leg20030214.html


Whoopie! Dump birthright citizenship and fall into the black hole of immigration law ...

[Ravenseye]

2. I'm torn on this

The whole point of being an ameican citizen at birth, I thought, was sort of the whole 'new country' thing. I dont't think it was thought, 200+ years ago, that people would be having babies here in the U.S. if they weren't living here, and if you're living here and born here, you're a citizen. They didn't have to specify residency.

Now with a woman able to get on a plane travel around the world and have a baby, theoretically in labor the whole time (my wife's first labor was 72 hours...long enough to fly around the world though I'd love to see someone try...:sarcasm:)...

Not to mention crossing the border for a few weeks or days, being born, then heading back with a new baby who has a U.S. Passport.

I'd like to hear someone explain the other side to me. Why should a non-legal resident be granted citizenship for their child? I think you should have to be a legal resident (citizen or non-citizen) to have the citizenship confered. Convince me otherwise.

[mccoyn]

34. Should the US accept foreign born citizens?

I think if we took away the birth right thing we could be left with babies that have no citizenship.

[Ravenseye]

37. That's definately one worry

It's happening in Germany now. People who have no citizneship anywhere. Speak german, born in germany, grew up in germany, but no citizenship anywhere.

Usually most countries though give citizenship to the children of someone who holds a passport in that country. Ie if you're Mexican and born in the U.S. if you have a mexican parent you can get a Mexican passport.

Still, what about those exceptions? What we're really talking about are the people who illegally have entered the country and probably already are illegally residing here.

I don't know.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. Citizenship by birth is conferred via a Reconstruction amendment, I think

It was the way former slaves were guaranteed citizenship and American Indians weren't citizens by birth until the 20th century. The definition has changed over time, and thus the discussion of changing it again is being raised because of the 'anchor baby' phenomenon.

Me, I don't have any problem with the status quo.

[struggle4progress]

78. The Ownership Society wants to undo the Civil War amendments.

[Nevernose]

83. It was the 14th, AKA "The Civil Rights" or "Due Process" Amendment

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

FYI: Civil rights laws and rulings are (usually) based almost entirely on the the "No State shall make or enforce any law which abridge..." portion. My already limited knowledge of constitutional law is fading fast, but I want to say "Gitlow v. New York," circa 1915, for the keystone case.

[treestar]

60. Impractical - there will be second and third generation illegals

and a permanent noncitizen class, you can bet.

It's not worth it.

It's just stupid, too, who cares? I mean, why be that concerned about it? If we fail to deport the parents in time, the child is born here, the child is a citizen, so what?

Enforcement is a problem now, this adds millions of new illegals.

Some of the illegals born in the US will be related to legals, making the immigration law more of a complex nightmare than it already is.

Other countries do it, who gives a *#K@#@#? Saudi Arabia, for example. Fine example for us.

[Nevernose]

89. Misconception: women don't come here to have babies

Women don't come here to have babies -- virtually never, in fact. They come here to get jobs. THEN they get pregnant. I could go into a whole biology lesson here, but I doubt that's necessary. Suffice it to say that men and women, regardless of cultural background, enjoy schtupping :). The number that come across already pregnant is miniscule in comparison, and a rational solution would be to crack down on border security, thus alleviating the issue. Find the ones who skip out when their student/work visas expire, fine or imprison the ones who hire them. Increase the numbers we allow in. The ones already here? Show some compassion.

Of the many illegals I personally know, all are either students or parents of students. My favorite student this year, in fact, was concerned that he would have to return to Guadalajara if his father couldn't re-cross illegally -- he had gone to visit the dying grandfather one last time, and didn't have papers to come back. Mom couldn't support three kids on her own, not working illegally.

My other "favorite" student this year cries about her immigration status at least once a week. She's sixteen, and has lived here since she was a year and a half old. "Mister ____, what is this asshole George Bush doing? I can't go back to Mexico! I've never even BEEN to Mexico, except when I was in diapers! Yeah, my Spanglish is fine, but I can't speak no f'ing Spanish!"

Many other of my students are born and raised here, and are constantly concerned that their parents are going to be deported. People who have been here for DECADES, worked hard, played by (most) of the rules, and would like nothing more than to live the American dream -- and escape the mind-numbing, bone-crushing poverty they themselves grew up in.

And, for what it's worth, I think one of my proudest moments came when one of my kids asked me to help her mom study for the citizenship test.

[Jawja]

123. I am inclined to agree with you, Ravenseye.

I have discussed with others about the idea of requiring at least ONE parent be a legal citizen of the U.S. before the child is granted citizenship. If this were to be the case, then a child born anywhere in the world who has one parent as a legal citizen of the U.S. is a citizen; and, a child born on U.S. soil to parents who are not legal citizens is not granted automatic citizenship.

The only requirement for automatic citizenship for the child is that at least one parent is a legal American citizen.

I think this is worthy of debate.

[keopeli]

3. Talk about an archaic law, citizenship by birthright seems outdated.

Is there anyone who can offer a reasonable defense as to why we have and should keep this law? For my part, I don't see the point. It seems to me to only undermine our immigration system. In our modern world with rapid travel and billions more people, a mother can choose the county she wants her child to be a citizen of and move there solely to have the baby. Is this fair? Is this equitable? Is this necessary?

[Bill McBlueState]

6. who does this?

"a mother can choose the county she wants her child to be a citizen of and move there solely to have the baby"

Well, maybe the rich.

My wife and I are middle-class Americans, which puts us in a better economic position than probably 80% of the world's population. Even in light of that, we don't have the resources to trot off to another country just in time for her to have a baby there.

I think this is a pretty minor problem.

[this_side_up]

12. There is a thriving industry in Los Angeles

for South Korean women who fly here, check into the motel and await
the contractions. They and the child return to SK with American birth
ceritificate. I haven't read if this is a popular business in other cities.

I have read that other countries - Australia, Ireland and others I cannot
remember - have changed the citizenship rules. i.e. being born there
does not automatically grant citizenship; each case is considered
individually.

[Orrin_73]

68. Isn't south korea a rich nation?

I understand that poor latin americans are immigrating to US but people from rich nations like south korea? Very strange.

[JVS]

135. According to the CIA, it's about the same wealth as poorer EU members

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html#Econ

Around $20000 per capita GDP

Thus while they can afford to travel, they still could live better in the USA.

[keopeli]

13. I spent 20 years living on the border.

I can tell you that, with regard to illegal immigrants, this is a common ploy to gain citizenship. Many pregnant mothers will come across the border just before the birth, stay with relatives and bear the baby here.

Is it a minor problem? Hard to say without actual numbers.

[primavera]

26. Well, it's not a very successful ploy then

The law already prohibits children born in the US of undocumented parents from petitioning on behalf of their immediate family members until they reach the age of 18. So coming here and having a child may secure the child's status, but it does nothing to help the parents' status.

[trudyco]

125. I remember seeing a Dateline (or something like that )show on it...

Many coming over into San Diego and giving birth so their kids could go to school here. Less to do with the parents and more to do with the child. Back then I thought they could also get some sort of subsidy like welfare or something, but it was awhile back. The laws probably changed.

[mcscajun]

36. You can't trot off to just any country.

The nations of Western Europe don't have this provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders; The UK does.

I recall hearing about this issue in Ireland earlier this year in connection with a controversy involving a family of "illegals". If neither parent is Irish, a child born there is not granted automatic citizenship.

[havocmom]

7. Ask your grandkids and great grandkids.

Pretty soon birthrights might be sold, not granted by birth. That's not such a pretty plan, is it? As it is now, Americans only have the rights the junta allows for, Constitution be damned. Why sit for letting them actually codify that you don't get them just by virtue of being born here? That slippery slope leads to slavery.

[keopeli]

10. I like your point - well taken. n/t

[havocmom]

15. Thanks for taking in vain intended

Graciousness is a lovely surprise around here of late ;)

Your posts are always thought provoking to me. I appreciate them very much. Good to have good people to bounce ideas around with. Ah, civility in discourse... what ever happened to it anyway? You and I might be a dying breed.
:toast:

[FreakinDJ]

20. I'm opposed to the use of Anchor Babies too

But their is no need to amend the constitution.

IF....and mean this is a BIG IF !!!!

We were to take Sen Kennedy seriously in his ststements the new immigrants - todays illegal immigrants, would have to pay back all funds recieved from the State then it wouldn't be a problem for me.

I mean my wife is a LEGAL IMMIGRANT. We had to file forms I-134 and I-485 as part of her immigration. Both forms are a legal notarized contract for her NOT TO ACCEPT STATE AID. If she does accept State Aid for any reason her greencard could be revoked and she could not apply for citizenship.

Why do we make exceptions for this group of immigrants and not her

[primavera]

31. Isn't the better question...

... why do we deny her state benefits even though she's here lawfully and pays taxes and is therefore just as entitled to benefits as anyone else?

How do you know that immigrants haven't already paid back what they've drawn out? For instance, the Social Security Administration estimates that undocumented workers have contributed nearly half a trillion dollars to Social Security that they will never see a penny's benefit from. Then of course, there's the fact that the labor they supply fuels economic activity of which you are the beneficiary and keeps the costs of goods and services you and your family use that much lower. Who do you think picked those 99 cent per pound tomatoes you had on your salad last night? Do you imagine that a skilled US worker being paid $50/hr and being paid health and retirement benefits picked them? Did that stop you from buying them for a buck a pound rather than buying the locally grown organic tomatoes at $5/lb?

So just how much economic benefit and direct cash contributions to social service programs from which only you are allowed to benefit do you need to milk immigrants for before they don't have to feel guilty getting an xray when their kid breaks arm?

[FreakinDJ]

32. Huge economic NET LOSS

They will be allowed to petition for social security benefits based on what they paid in even if they were illegal and filing under a false SSI number.

So you might want to alter your previous statement.

That money will be applied to SSI benefits and NO ONE pays back the State Aid benifits

In California, the state with the highest population of foreign-born residents, citizen households were saddled with an annual tax burden of $1,178 from the use of public services by immigrants, according to the study.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/14/ap/business/mainD8HJNA680.shtml

In 1996 the California governor's office estimated that the state was spending $2 billion per year to school 380,000 illegal immigrant children. America cannot afford to educate the world's children.
http://immigration.about.com/od/ussocialeconomicissues/i/EduIllegalIss_2.htm

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION
According to George Borjas, a professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, the slight economic benefit created by immigration comes at the expense of unskilled native born workers. According to his estimates, the yearly arrival of 300,000 immigrants with less than a high school education drives down the wages of native workers with the same education levels by almost $ 2,000 a year.
http://www.visalaw.com/99mar/24mar99.html

Comparing the $36 billion that immigrants contribute to welfare to the $56 billion they consume, immigrants consume $20 billion more over their lifetimes than they contribute.
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html

[primavera]

39. No thanks

I don't need to revise my previous statement. Social Security has no way of paying out benefits to people who have paid in if they don't know who paid what, which is the very definition of the half trillion dollar earnings suspense file. There has been recent legislation extending to undocumented aliens the right to retreive some portion of what they paid in - when it is known what the paid in, for instance, when they used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number to make their contributions. But the earnings suspense file doesn't include such potentially attributable contributions, it only includes those contributions which are unidentifiable, coming, for instance, from the commonly used 000-00-0000 Social Security Number.

I know, I know, you have all of the usual suspects of anti-immigrant statistical sources, people like George Borjas and FAIR and Center for Immigration Studies, right-wing wackos one and all. Their statstical methodologies are most generously described as selective and more accurately described as utterly biased and irreproducible political fabrications. God I get sick of seeing their drivel trotted out in support of anti-immigrant arguments. But fine, you're plainly predisposed to believe those one-sided statistics, I'm not going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change mine, so why waste our breath? I hope you're more generously disposed to your spouse than you are to other immigrants.

[FreakinDJ]

43. You really should try watching C-span

Yes the amendment was passed allowing person to petition to claim the benifits paid in while here illegally even in cases using false SSI #

[primavera]

47. And they're going to pay these benefits to whom, precisely?

Social Security has no idea who paid into the earnings suspense file, that's why they created the earnings suspense file, for those contributions for which they had no way of knowing who made the contribution. So you're saying now anyone can claim to have made massive contributions to the earnings suspense file which cannot be provem, but, hey, we're just such generous guys that we'll take their word for it? You want to think about that one? Yes, as I already stated, there are instances where contributions can be traced back to the contributor, including, as you say, some who used a fraudulent SSN, and those contributors will get something back for what they paid in - oh, the horror! Those contributions are not part of the earnings suspense file, whose contributors, by definition, are unknown and unknowable. So don't worry, you'll still get a windfall at the expense of undocumented aliens, fear not!

[FreakinDJ]

70. Dispels the myth you set forth in your 1st reply

<< How do you know that immigrants haven't already paid back what they've drawn out? >>

BECAUSE SO FAR THEY ARE A HUGE NET LOSS

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION
According to George Borjas, a professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, the slight economic benefit created by immigration comes at the expense of unskilled native born workers. According to his estimates, the yearly arrival of 300,000 immigrants with less than a high school education drives down the wages of native workers with the same education levels by almost $ 2,000 a year.
http://www.visalaw.com/99mar/24mar99.html

So why all your efforts to spread dis-information

Nice long winded reply in which you disputed your own arguments. Let’s refrain from your trusty standby calling me a racist or I’ll have to show you my photograph of this “Brown Skinned American and his LEGAL immigrant wife”

[primavera]

84. Consider your source

Fact 1: George Borjas is the only scholar in the field who claims he can prove the claim you just quoted - no one else has been able to document the effect he claims immigrants have on wages, quite the contrary, the scholars such as David Card and Sheila Croucher, have conducted study after study and see no trace of this effect that Borjas alone claims exists.

Fact 2: In order to arrive at his conclusions, Borjas has to conveniently neglect numerous basic statistical corrections any first year stats student knows to apply.

Fact 3: The studies in which Borjas makes these claims are commissioned and paid for by FAIR, a rabidly anti-immigrant lobbying group who get their money from the right-wing Scaife Mellon Foundation and the nazi eugenics foundation, the Pioneer Fund.

Now, you do the math and tell me which one of us here is spreading disinformation? I'm not the one quoting a right-wing hack writer of pointedly and conspicuously flawed scholarship here.

[FreakinDJ]

99. Then add Dem. Senator Feinstien to your list

In the last year, illegal immigration cost Californians almost $1.2 billion. Of that amount, California spent an estimated $980 million on emergency services for undocumented immigrants.

The problem of uncompensated emergency services has far reaching implications beyond the loss of hospital revenues. Health care costs and insurance premiums are rising, due in part to the escalating levels of uncompensated care. Rising health care premiums affect the ability of small businesses to provide health care coverage for company employees.

High liability costs and low compensation levels threaten the viability of emergency rooms and emergency transportation providers. Some counties with high rates of uncompensated costs can no longer provide "charity care" for local needy residents.

Nationwide, states and hospitals incur uncompensated costs of approximately $1.45 billion annually to provide federally-mandated emergency medical treatment to undocumented aliens.
http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/03Releases/r-scaapII.htm

Reality is a real bitch ain't it

[primavera]

101. Your reality, not the real one

Sorry, I can't speak for Feinstein's numbers, she doesn't say where she got them from and I haven't looked at her methodology. I have seen and analyzed the numbers and methodologies of the studies conducted by the Borjas/FAIR/CIS partnership (have you?) and know them to be completely full of shit in ways which are quite astonishingly obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to actually read them instead of simply quoting them as if they bore some bearing on reality. I do know that smarter people than Feinstein have been taken in, either unwittingly or deliberately out of political reasons, by FAIR's racist propaganda. Bill Clinton himself, looking to steal a little Repuke thunder during the '96 elections, turned to FAIR as his primary consultant on immigrantion reform and, not surprisingly, we came up with the '96 Illegal Act which has been so catastrophic.

FreakinDJ, you're putting me in a position where I'm reflexively defending points I don't really want to be trying to defend this vigorously, but I feel like I have to because you're using them as the basis for overly far-reaching conclusions and are relying upon the reasoning of some extremely right-wing racists to justify your conclusions. You feel so passionately that illegal immigrants incur costs. Fine, you win, I can't deny that there are undoubtedly instances where some illegal immigrant kid breaks an arm and gets an xray his parents are unable to pay for. Are you happy now? My point is that that's a drop in a much bigger bucket. You are choosing to overlook every offsetting contribution made by immigrants, which is hardly surprising because the mentors you've turned to on this subject are agencies like FAIR and CIS and people like George Borjas, people who may not wear white sheets, but otherwise would fit in just fine at any Klan rally; people who have publically stated that brown-skinned people are mentally and morally inferior and are invading and threatening white America - those are the very words of John Tanton, the founder of both FAIR and CIS. These are the people you're listening to on immigration. Is it any wonder that the numbers they generate only represent a tiny portion of reality? They don't want you to consider that immigrants in Arizona may have incurred some costs, but are also directly responsible for Arizona being one of the healthiest economies in the country right now, thanks not to some Silicon Valley style hi-tech boom, but because the low cost labor available to Arizona is providing the fuel for them to produce agricultural goods inexpensively, construction and housing starts are at record levels, all thanks to illegal immigrants. FAIR doesn't want you to think about that, they just want you to think that some immigrant kid got a free xray. But the point is, that's an incomplete representation of fiscal and economic realities.

Now, we could have a chat about whether driving one's economy on cheap immigrant labor was a good thing or not, and there I might surprise you, because I readily perceive there are two sides to that coin and I could go either way on it. What I am not going to let you get away with is smugly offering up fragmentary numbers concocted by white supremacist groups and say that they faithfully depict the big picture on a matter as complex as illegal immigration.

[FreakinDJ]

103. Just that I’m tired of paying for it

I think its great you offer up Arizona as an example of how illegal workers have driven down wages for working Americans. The construction industry in Arizona is a prime example ($19.75 prevailing wage construction worker, vs: $33.76 avg). The fact Phoenix Arizona was forced to adopt “Live-able Wage Policies” is yet another prime example.

Yet I don’t think the true numbers you would prefer to hold accurate portray any thing close to the true cost. Being located here in California (highest illegal immigrant population state) we have more then our share of first hand knowledge of the “True Cost” involved.

Los Angeles with highest rates of workmen’s compensation fraud, and Insurance Fraud in the country. Last I checked Workmen’s Comp fees were driving businesses out of California. The latest numbers on health insurance cost reveal 20% of our premiums go to cover uninsured non-reimbursed hospital cost. Not that you could ever prove illegal immigrants responsible for these increased rates. Just that you can extrapolate the census figures of Illegal immigrant population and Insurance fraud, Welfare fraud, Workmen’s Comp. fraud rates coincide.

Not that I’m bigoted or nothing

Just that I’m tired of paying for it

And obviously being from Arizona you supported the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas State Chamber of Commerce coming to California during the energy crisis orchestrated by ENRON and offering Tax incentives, and even FREE LAND to lure Tech companies away from California

Funny part is how were you Arizonans so clairvoyant to know to enact State Laws allowing for Tax and Land give-aways just before the Energy Crisis. – Almost like you had some one in Ken Lay’s office

Freeper Shrill

[primavera]

105. Actually, I'm honestly not sure what numbers are true

The only thing in this fantastically complex issue of which I am absolutely certain is that, if FAIR or its cronies said it, it's not the whole story, because they've demonstrated over and over again that they are activists and not scholars, and so choose their evidence extremely selectively. For instance, in calculating health care costs incurred by illegal immigrants, George Borjas includes not only those costs incurred by illegal immigrants, but by anyone in their family, even if their family includes legal permanent residents and/or US citizens, even if that illegal alien legalized their status and became a citizen or permanent resident. By that method of reckoning, if your wife had ever been an undocumented alien, not only would her medical expenses, but yours as well, would be counted in Borjas' estimate of the costs of illegal immigrants, even though your wife is no longer an illegal alien and you never were. Does that strike you as a fair and reasonable method of counting? Likewise, Borjas doesn't count whether those medical expenses incurred by an illegal alien (or anyone to whom they're related) were covered by insurance - if the expense was billed, it goes into Borjas' column as part of the cost of illegal immigration, even if the alien had insurance, or self-paid the bill him/herself. Borjas doesn't care whether the illegal alien paid any taxes which would represent at least some partial reimbursement of the system for healthcare expenses incurred by the alien. He certainly doesn't look at any economic benefit a community may (or admittedly may not, depending upon the local circumstances) derive from the inclusion of that labor in the work force. In sum, he and his patrons at FAIR choose to only look at those numbers which make aliens look bad, without looking at the overall picture. By that reasoning, if you offer me a dollar in exchange for a quarter, I should turn down your offer because it would cost me a quarter. Okay, so it cost me a quarter, but I was still ahead by 75 cents at the end of the day! What fool wouldn't find that an attractive deal? It's like me picking through your posts, taking words out of context, and "quoting" you as having said that "I... think it's great that... illegal aliens... are... driving... into... California." Don't try to deny it, you said each and every one of those words! Yet that incomplete reasoning and taking things totally out context is precisely how Borjas and FAIR come up with their spectacular numbers.

The problem is, FAIR is an activist agency, dedicated not to scholarly research, but to the promotion of a political agenda, with an incredibly aggressive PR department, and the deep coffers of a number of right-wing foundations upon which to draw in order to get out their message. They also make the kind of outrageous claims that make for the splashy headlines newspapers love to print, because they sell more newspapers that way. Still more unfortunately, politicians read newspapers too, so these guys end up being invited in to provide testimony before legislatures. In contrast, the genuinely scholarly works out there, by people such as David Card, Sheila Croucher, the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Charitable Trust, GAO, and so on, are not prepared by activist groups, so aggressively spreading the word isn't part of their operational plan. They don't have the deep coffers of places like FAIR, so wouldn't be able get the word out as effectively as FAIR does even if they understood that to be their primary purpose. And, most crippling of all, their reports tend to be really dry, technical, and boring, and they don't arrive at the dramatic, black and white conclusions which the media and its readership want to hear, so nobody pays them any attention. But if you really want to understand immigration and its impact, both positive and negative, those are the places you should be consulting, not the political hacks with ideological axes to grind.

[FreakinDJ]

109. Then explain to me

Why every where that has high populations of illegal workers does there exist suppressed wages of all workers.

And yes I read the works you’ve cited and believe they are as a Pure a HORSE SHIT as those you oppose. I don’t say this with any statistical evidence, just from my experience of Construction Management on a National level, where by I have been to, and supervised construction sites in 38 of the 50 States of the Union.

There is a DIRECT CORELATION of illegal immigrant population and suppressed wages for American Citizens. Your proud State of Arizona is a prime example. Can a family realistically survive on $19.75 per hr wage

The studies you cite “as correct” are fundamentally flawed in their assumption of wages NOT being suppressed because they fail to include Housing prices, food prices, and consumer prices in those towns as well. We are not talking wages now, we are talking earning power. Then you take into consideration they only compared wages in towns 10 miles away with lower immigrant populations- BE REALISTIC YOU KNOW THAT APPROACH IS AS EQUALLY FLAWED.

Now you wish to aggravate Americans that have suffered down sizing, Energy market manipulation, and outsourcing, and you ask us – The American Worker, one more time to take it on the chin with those equally bogus cooked numbers.

Your position is supporting Corporate Business – the ones who brought us massive out sourcing. Corporate Farms – perhaps the greatest influence over the government’s allowance of illegal border crossings, and Business greed – those cheating the IRS, the State Tax codes, Workmen’s Comp. programs, the Social Security Administration, (to which could very well be the final demise of the “New Deal”) and the illegal immigrants themselves who over burden are healthcare systems, social programs, and school systems.

Not only do you need to re-think who you are asking to finance this great endeavor to subsidize Business and Corporate greed, but you need to hold the illegals responsible for the damages already done to an ailing work force.

[primavera]

110. That one I don't know

a.) I don't know for sure that what you're saying is true, that everyplace that has a large population of undocumented workers experiences a wage suppression. I know a number of scholars who have greater knowledge of these phenomenae than I and who are not affiliated with or in the pay of any political groups have conducted numerous studies on migration's impact on wages and have not been able to find evidence supporting the effect that you and Borjas perceive.

b.) Even if that were true, I don't know that a causal relationship exists between the two, or simply a coincidence. I do know that about a bazillion different factors go into wages and job availability, including interest rates, outsourcing, selective tax incentives, the overall state of the economy, demand for particular goods and services, and so on and so on, any one or combination of which might play a greater role in the economic phenomenae you're perceiving.

Then again, you could be correctly identifying a major contributor to a problem. My point is that such a conclusion has not yet been proven. Thus far, we have you and a handful of right-wing wackos with political axes to grind claiming its existence, while the overwhelming majority of respected scholars have found no evidence to support that claim. Could their studies and methodologies be overlooking something important? Absolutely! I'll grant that in a heartbeat. Then again, maybe you and Borjas are the ones who are missing something important that you haven't taken into consideration, or there's an error in your logic. I know for a fact that Borjas at least has made several such errors, and intentionally, no less. Until I know which position is valid, I'm not prepared to haul off and support policies based upon a set of assumptions which may be flawed. If those assumptions are incorrect, then policies resulting from them will also be flawed and will attack a group that is not responsible for the problem. The problem will not be solved and we will have endorsed a potentially harmful approach to immigrants and achieve nothing for having done so, possibly even making a bad situation worse.

Again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong; only that we don't know, that this is a mindnumbingly complex area in which a host of different factors play contributing roles, and going off half-cocked and indiscriminately blasting any one of those possible factors before the facts are in is reckless and irresponsible.

[FreakinDJ]

111. Try these stats

Median Family Income $24,271
Average Home Price $328,239
http://www.homegain.com/local_real_estate/CA/los_angeles.html

85% of the people in LA could not qualify to buy a home

There is a DIRECT corelation of illegal immigration.

The studies you cited were EQUALLY flawed and it doesn't take a scholar to figure that out

[primavera]

113. Isn't that true everywhere?

I mean, Boston has almost no illegal immigrants, but the median cost of a home is still ten times what a normal person could possibly begin to afford. I don't think you can blame that one on immigrants. Maybe some of the other problems you want to ascribe to immigrants are similarly unrelated and the result of other factors.

[serryjw]

118. I have never seen an issue

where people are not willing to see/hear the real problem. I have my beliefs and am willing to hear/see the other side. I have lived in several states where illegal immigration is a huge problem. The pro-immigration are simply not willing to learn the real numbers. They think it is LIBERAL to open up our borders to anyone who comes here illegally. WHERE is this money coming from?

Personally, I believe anchor babies ARE unconstitutional

quote........
The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).
end quote..
Like every other law we circumvent it's original intention

[primavera]

120. I hear you

I've been working in immigration law and policy for fifteen years now and it still never fails to amaze me how strong people's need to scapegoat is. Even when the facts are explained, people still want to believe that immigrants are responsible for every bad thing that happens in the universe, from a poor economy to a staggering deficit to corporate outsourcing to an epidemic of hangnails; no matter how little immigrants have to do with the problem, people still love to blame them for everything. It is disappointing.

[SoCalDem]

49. 99 cent per pound tomatoes?? Where? I want some of those

I paid $!.99 for some not-so-gorgeous ones yesterday..:(

[indigolake]

51. $50/hr for Picking Tomatos? Where do I sign up?

I am a skilled US worker, with a college degree, and over 15 years experience... And I could only wish that someday I will make $20/hr, or even $15/hr. Sure, I live in small town USA, but with housing prices, heating costs, transportation costs, and health care on the rise, I will not survive for long. Oh, and I am a born citizen.

If immigrant workers are putting money into the social security system at $3/hr. or even $10/hr., they are not putting a whole lot into the system as a whole, ok. As for economic benefit, well, you know we keep sending many jobs overseas anyway. This is just a job that doesn't get sent overseas, but the money does go out of the country, so local economic development is really a misnomer here.

Many times I wait to buy my tomatos at the farmers market in the summer here, because the tomatos are so juicy and delicious, and I am paying a local farmer for the tomatos, which is comparable to buying them in the store, and I know I am helping an honest legal citizen.

My mother works in a local hospital in an area of growing illegal immigrants (in Iowa, of all places). Much of the unpaid medical bills are from illegal immigrants at this hospital, so if the illegals are feeling guilty about taking little Juan to x-ray and get his broken arm fixed, the guilt, if any, is likely due to the fact that they can't pay for the medical bill.

I am not against immigration, I just oppose illegal immigration.

[primavera]

64. Interesting post

I agree that we're committing economic suicide with outsourcing, as it's a 100% dead loss to us. The jobs are created overseas, all of the secondary economic activity related to those jobs occurs overseas, the overseas governments get the tax revenues to spend on their infrastructural improvements and social programs, absolutely every benefit of the jobs leaves the country. In comparison, immigration at least generates those secondary benefits in this country. Yes, some of that money does leave the country through remittances, but it's a fairly small percent. Cost of living being what it is in this country, people everywhere, including illegal immigrants, have to spend here most of what they earn here just in order to live, and that does create some jobs for people to provide the goods and services they consume.

One point I would make in response to your comment about $3/hr jobs, it's a bit of a popular fallacy that illegal immigrants mostly work in sub-minimum wage sweatshop positions. In reality, most of them work for "respectable" companies in the agricultural, meatpacking, construction, and services industries, for places like Tyson's Chicken and Marriott Hotels, for instance, and they typically earn there the same wages that US workers in those same jobs earn and taxes and Social Security are withheld from their paychecks just like they are from every other employee. Granted, they may not be contributing a lot through a $10/hr job picking asparagus or plucking chickens or whatever, but, then again, neither is the US citizen working at Mal-Wart for $7/hr. Insofar as tax contributions to social welfare programs diminish with lower wages, well, that's not unique to immigrants, it applies equally well to the ever growing number of poor native workers, whose access to social welfare programs no one here has contested.

I'm delighted that you have a local farmer you can go to for fresh produce, to say nothing of extremely jealous. Living in DC, I'm stuck getting my produce through Safeway which is probably buying their tomatoes from massive agro suppliers, at least some of whom you can bet are using undocumented labor to pick their produce. Either that, or Safeway is buying them from Columbia or Chile or some such place.

But that, I think, is a lot of our problem in this country: we've created a system where the Safeways are the dominant players and not the local farmers. And we make it worse by always demanding cheaper and cheaper goods, regardless of how well the producer treats their employees, whether they hire legal workers or illegals, or import their goods from distant places - as consumers, we don't split hairs, just as long as the price is rock bottom. So, predictably, the small farmers dwindle away and the Safeways and Mal-Warts take over. And unfortunately, that's a bed we've made for ourselves and continue to make every day with our buying behavior.

Anyway, interesting post and good luck securing more rewarding employment in the Bushista junta's feudal economy. And welcome to DU! :hi:

[JWS]

133. The unemployment rate is under 5%

All this talk about illegal immigrants taking jobs from US citizens is just xenophobia. Just like calling a mexican "little Juan".

[politicat]

73. So you like the idea of people walking around with communicable diseases,

permanent deformity because they couldn't get their broken bones treated, and massive physical damage from labor/mechanical injuries? Are you fucking serious?

Dude, go to India. Look around at the street people. See the marks left by measles and TB and leprosy. Watch the small children who fell down and broke an ankle when they were five, and now, years later, are pushing themselves around on skateboards begging for a few cents. Look at the old people who have had limbs amputated because when the injury went gangrenous, there was nothing else, though a cheap course of amoxicillin would have prevented the infection in the first place. And then go into the houses of the middle class, where even well-off people end up with TB eventually and have to be treated, and where diseases go crazy and where even wealthy children contract typhoid and cholera because the public health system lets sick people stay sick.

That's what you're asking for if you set up a system whereby people only have a right to emergency level health care if they have money and papers. You're asking for a public health care disaster, where the maimed can't take care of themselves (either here or where ever it was they were born), where the sick spread disease, and where preventable and treatable injury and illness causes more suffering, death and damage.

Do you really think that it is perfectly okay for a woman who has been hit by a car to have to DIE in the street because she's sworn a contract not to take governmental services? She can't get in the ambulance, after all, and if the idiot who hit her doesn't have insurance, then her only alternative to reneging on her contract is dying in the streets of massive internal injuries. (Hell, even if idiot does have insurance, it may not cover her medical bills.)

If you're saying that is acceptable in your world view, you're sick. I don't favor heavy investment in public health because I have any altruistic notions about rights and privileges -- I favor it because I don't want to fucking die of TB, cholera, typhus, malaria, typhoid, whooping cough, German measles or polio. That's what public health is for; it protects everyone and is one of the most selfish investments of tax dollars I'm happy to make.

[Triana]

27. Not fair. Not equitable. Not necessary. And, no reasonable defense for it.

....I think the law ought to be removed. And it DOES undermine our immigration system (such as it is).

It ALSO encourages illegal immigrants to have children they otherwise would not have, or to have them for the WRONG reasons (a ticket to staying in the US). The LARGEST increase in US population recently has been from illegals coming here and having lots of babies -- to ensure they'll be allowed to stay. This country can NOT support this sustainably and anyone who thinks it can (or that we should even try) is being unrealistic.

It's a HUGE loophole that ought to be closed as part of a sensible immigration policy.

[Sapere aude]

41. Have you read the Constitution lately? That's why we have laws

to protect us from thinking such as yours.

[treestar]

61. Shouldn't we get over ourselves? Is everything foreigners do

done with no motive other than becoming American citizens? And is so, wouldn't that be a compliment somehow?

[struggle4progress]

80. Uh, it keeps wingnuts from stripping progressives of citizenship.

[MrPrax]

42. Best Argument...

People were being born well before nations came into being...might date from that bit of archaic past...I was born here, so this is my land, until I am pushed off it by someone born elsewhere? People resented that...so they developed laws and stuff...

[liberalpragmatist]

45. So Should I Be a Citizen?

My parents are legal immigrants (now naturalized citizens) and I was born in the US before they took citizenship.

[sdfernando]

53. Opposite for me

I was not born in the US, I did absolutely nothing to earn my citzenship yet I'm a naturalized US citizen..why? Luckily for all of you I can never be the President.....yet.

[treestar]

56. If you were born while they were legal immigrants, then mabye this new

approach would make you legal too.

If you were born while they were illegal - then you would be an illegal alien, I guess.

[liberalpragmatist]

66. But would or should I be a naturalized CITIZEN?

Could I run for president, for example?

[treestar]

75. Don't know because we don't know what subsidiary rules they

would make. If you start as illegal, there would need to be some way to be legal to be able to start to rack up the time in legal permanent resident status that is needed to be naturalized.

Those illegal at birth might have a kinder law towards being legal, though I doubt that is the intent of those who support this crap.

[politicat]

72. Because there is no Citizen of the World possibility.

I'll agree with you when I can apply to the UN for a World Citizenship document that will allow me to have a UN passport. Until then, we must have citizenship by birthright.

Right now in several countries, a child is only a citizen if at least one of her parents is a citizen. In some cases, where the parents have been exiled or expelled (for being the wrong race, color, religion, gender, too liberal, too conservative, too whatever) and are living as refugees in a country they were not born in, the only way their child gets ANY citizenship is through right of birth. And if the country where the child is born doesn't recognize birthright as a qualification for citizenship, then the child is without a country. She can't get a passport from anywhere, so she cannot travel to a country that might grant her citizenship. She is likely to be unable to work, not being able to get a work permit. Is this what you want? A permanent class of people we can't get rid of because we have no where to send them, and can't employ because they don't have a legal status?

There is no international documentation that allows a person to be excused from the claiming a country rationale that every nation on the planet uses. So we need a change to international law. Good luck. And until then, the fact that my parents happened to be born in this country gives me no more rights than my peer whose parents were born in Vietnam and had her six weeks after they got off the boat in San Diego. We are both citizens.

If we have to mess with the Constitution, there are better things to change.

[struggle4progress]

79. My birthright citizenship protects me from being deported for my politics

[IndyJones]

130. I agree with you. It is one of the carrots that should be eliminated.

[northzax]

5. wrong title

should read 'birthright citizenship for poor brown people up for debate'

birthright citizenship is one of the things that makes the US different and (imho) better than other countries. This is incredibly rare in the developed world.

[Triana]

8. It should be removed. These children are called "anchor babies"

and illegals come here and have them purposely to try to keep themselves from being deported because then the child will be left behind.

It's selfish dirty trickery if you ask me and it's the WRONG reason to have a baby.

The citizenship by birth (if parents are illegals) ought to be removed. If the parents are illegal immigrants then the child should also be considered an illegal immigrant and all can be deported -- together.

[Kagemusha]

9. I'm asking myself how to reply to this intelligently.

And, I've given up.

[Bridget Burke]

18. I'm asking myself how to reply to this plan politely.

Sure, let's change the Constitution!

And, of course, we all know that racism & xenophobia have NOTHING to do with the matter.

[havocmom]

23. Try this polite message to your reps:

FUCK NO!... strong message to follow :evilgrin:

[Bridget Burke]

28. Sounds good.

Sheila Jackson Lee is my Rep--she likes the direct approach.

My Senators are Cornyn & Kay Bailey Hutchison. He'll ignore me & she'll send a meaningless form letter.

[havocmom]

17. Then, who next loses birthright?

Like I said, a VERY slippery slope, possibly leading to slavery for all not born to the manor.

[struggle4progress]

81. Bingo! This is exactly where the wingnuts are headed with this one.

[treestar]

57. False, they can be deported. The kids doesn't have to go, of

course, but as a practical matter does.

[politicat]

74. So the child is a citizen of where in your worldview?

Let's take a bunch of countries that only have birthright citizenship (several in S. America, a number in Africa, and then there are countries that have really fucked up citizenship rules, like your great-grandparents had to give birth while sitting backwards on a milk cow under a full moon.) The parents come to the US, maybe legally, as students, but they overstay their visas or work illegally or have a speeding ticket and become illegal. Then they have a kid. Then they all get deported.

Where's the kid a citizen? Not in the country his parents are from - that country only has birthright citizenship. You gotta be born there. Kid's not a US citizen because the parents were illegal.

Guess what? Kid can't leave the airport. No passport. US can't issue one to a non-citizen, and the parents' country won't. No documentation, no travel. But kid can't stay and kid can't go. What, do we build orphanages next door to every International Airport in the US to house the children of the deported? You wanna feed 'em?

There are people who have lived for years in airports because they don't have the right documents. You really want to do this to a couple thousand (yes, that's all) kids a year?

Removing birthright citizenship just adds about 300 layers of complexity to a nasty problem.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. I really want to read the answer to that one. -nt

[politicat]

121. I note that no reply followed. Hmmmm.... n/t

[MercutioATC]

122. If you want to let the kid stay, but ship the parents home, that's fine.

That's the crux of the problem. The child is a citizen and, because he/she is too young to take care of themselves (or because it's "cruel" to split up families), the illegal parents get to stay, too.

Well, splitting up families is always "cruel". If two parents (legal U.S. citizens) with a baby get caught with a meth lab, do we refuse to send them to jail because there'll be nobody to watch the baby? No. We send them to jail and put the baby in foster care (an imperfect solution) because 1) they broke the law and 2) they're considered to be bad influences on the child anyway.

Why is it different with illegals?

[politicat]

124. The difference is that being undocumented is not necessarily "criminal".

A person can become illegal for getting caught speeding, or failing to pay a $15 parking ticket, or for pissing off the neighbors. Immigrants can't break laws that citizens break all the time, accidentally and purposefully. They can become illegal if they don't get their student paperwork filled out just right. They can become illegal if the Feds suddenly decide that people from X are all terrorists and must be expelled (even if the people in the US from X legally are known dissidents or known to support US policies in X). But messing up paperwork or getting your status changed on you is not a criminal action (well, not by the immigrant. The feds are another matter.)

Most people who come into this country cross the border legally. Only 1% of all people who are in this country and get picked up on an immigration violation have no previous immigration paperwork (i.e. sneaked across the border with the help of a coyote). Most people who are illegal were at one time here legally, but their visas expired, or their work permit expired or they lost their job and couldn't get their H1B transferred or they couldn't get their student visa transferred to a legal permanent resident visa after they graduated. This last happens a lot on university campuses, because students from Asia, Africa and the Middle East come here to go to school, and find that buying a house is more cost effective than paying student housing rents. These students are often married with children because their cultures encourage marriage. And Immigration and the universities tell these students that yeah, it'll be EASY to get a permanent resident card once they graduate. Then ooops. The feds change the rules (which legal residents can't vote on, even though the people who CAN vote on the issue will never be touched by the law), and the student ends up back on square zero, with no visa at all, a wet degree that is more useful in the US than in India or Yemen, and a child who is a citizen of the US.

There's no reason to put that kid in foster care. That child has parents who love and care for him and who have done nothing wrong, are well educated and capable of contributing to the improvement of society. It's cheaper for us as a society to give that kid's parents a visa and put 'em to work.

Besides, where are we going to get the foster homes? We don't have enough foster homes for the children of meth makers and child abusers. Kids end up in group homes with 15 and 20 kids all the time, or in for-profit foster homes, where the kids are basically cows to be milked.

[MercutioATC]

138. I wasn't seriously advocating foster care...just making a point.

Allowing illegals to use "anchor babies" to stay in the country is a poor practice.

[Beausoir]

76. Your post is so sickening that I can't bring myself to debate you.

You sick fuck....you are talking about MY children here.

MY children are not going ANYWHERE.

You may disapprove of the color of my children's skin....that's your sick problem.

MY children are not going ANYWHERE.

[depakid]

88. Wow. Where'd you hear that?

:crazy:

So, I guess from your perspective a Constitutional Amendment is in order.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

114. Hm. "anchor babies" is the new "welfare queens", it seems. -nt

[IndyJones]

131. Plus the child starts collecting welfare immediately.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

139. You have anything to back this idea of "Welfare Princesses"?

A neutral source (IE, not FAIR or CIS or our good friends over at the Heritage Foundation).

[AngryAmish]

11. it should be done away with

A buddy of mine was born in Saudi Arabia (to Scottish parents). Does he have a right to be a citizen there and fly over there for free healthcare and dental plus free university and other benefits for SA citizens?

[Kagemusha]

16. I, personally, would not raise Saudi Arabia as a shining example of

national self-governance and wise, enlightened immigration policies.

[havocmom]

19. My British pal's US born husband has the right to go to Britian

for medical care. They plan to move to her home in their old age.

[Telly Savalas]

91. "Ah, man I'd love to go to that movie with you, but I'm flying

to Saudi Arabia to get my teeth cleaned."

[kskiska]

21. Would they apply this to Cubans as well?

Or is it intended just for Mexicans?

[tsuki]

24. Interesting. How long will it take to undo the 14th Amendment?

[havocmom]

30. Good question. Didn't take long to undo the first ten

officially or not.

[Sapere aude]

40. 14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

14th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jberryhill]

46. Correct - There's No Getting Around It

Without either a Constitutional Amendment, or a cynical redefinition of the word "born".

[struggle4progress]

82. Well, the racists recruited by Nixon into the GOP have never liked 14

[Mojorabbit]

108. I was born in Bermuda

My dad was in the airforce and American, my mom is Portuguese born and raised in the Azores Islands.
I had to go through the nationalization procedure when we moved back to the states. This is another angle that will have to be addressed if this goes through. Lots of service people marrying people from other countries. It would be a logistics nightmare. Where would one draw lines?

[Solon]

48. Given some of the responses on this thread...

I guess some people really don't believe in equal rights after all, especially of Latinos.

[MercutioATC]

50. Oh, that's complete bullshit.

Some people here don't believe in a person of any nationality or race being able to circumvent immigration law by pumping out babies. I agree with them.

You support breaking one law and, instead of being penalized, actually benefiting from your transgression by invoking another law?

[Solon]

52. So we punish the children for the sins of the parents?

Since when is that fair, also the law isn't exactly something minor, look up the 14th Amendment.

[MercutioATC]

58. What "punishment" are we meting?

If somebody goes to a store and shoplifts a birthday present for their child, isn't society justified in taking that present back? If it is a "punishment" isn't the parent that stole the gift to blame, rather than the law which demands its return?

[Solon]

59. This is more serious than a toy...

This would be to make children completely stateless, they would NOT be citizens of any nation, by default they would be exiles of the world. That to me seems totally atrocious to do to innocent people. A parent steals a toy, you take the toy back, you do NOT throw the child in jail.

[MercutioATC]

63. Exactly...but the principle is the same.

If a parent causes harm to a child, we call it child abuse. The parent is to blame.

Similarly, if a parent illegally enters a country and has children, they're to blame for that child's "man without a country" status.

Allowing the practice to continue serves nobody.

[Solon]

65. Yet at the same time it hurts few as well...

First things first, having children born in this country does NOT ensure YOU yourself can stay in the country. However, to say that because of parentage, or the actions of parents affects your own status means that we would end up with a situation where we would ensure to have a permanent underclass of "non-citizens" people neither entitled nor deserve citizenship due to the actions or status of parents. This sounds to me like the "bad blood, good blood" argument of the old Nobilities of Europe, something that should be anathema to all true democrats and republicans(small letters).

[MercutioATC]

67. I think a step back (a broader perspective) would help.

First, we are not creating anything. The parents are.

Second, the status of those children is unchanged. If we don't allow them to become "anchor babies", they'll travel back to Mexico (or wherever) with their deported parents and will essentially have the same life they would have if their parents had never illegally entered the U.S.

Collaterally, what message does successfully breaking the law for personal gain send to the child? That child would always be able to legitimately apply for U.S. citizenship in the future...what lesson is taught by showing them that they can benefit by ignoring laws?

I do see where you're coming from and I'm sympathetic. However, I don't believe that gifting a child with U.S. citizenship justifies breaking an important (and practical) principle.

[Solon]

69. But their status does change, that is a major problem...

Not all nations have the same laws regarding citizenship, but many do NOT confer citizenship to a child born of their citizens OUTSIDE of their soil. So those kids would be stateless, there would be no nation to deport them too, and they would most likely NOT be able to follow their parents to their nation of origin if the parents are deported.

Also there are even muddier issues, for example, a citizen and an illegal immigrant have a child together, is the child a citizen or not? In addition to that, there are other issues such as, well, if the non-citizen cannot be deported, what do we do to them, they cannot, rightfully, enter into any of our public service systems, like foster care, and neither can we offer any support systems to them. So what options would there be for them?

Also, since when is citizenship a "gift"? I didn't earn it, nor was I gifted it, and neither did you, I wager. Why not change the law entirely, make everyone born on US soil Non-Citizens until the age of 18, and then require a test to "prove" they deserve citizenship and the right to vote at that age. They don't pass, they don't get that right. Seems pretty simple to me, and would apply across the board.

You keep on using the "law and order" argument for this, well, let's take it to its logical solution, if a Parent is a felon, so is the child, at birth, if an Illegal Immigrant can birth an illegal child, for I guess that would be the "legal definition" then the same could be said for all parents that commit crimes in this country.

[JVS]

137. I'm going to have to ask you to verify the claim that many states...

do not grant citizenship to the children of their own citizens if they are born abroad. How about 10 examples of these many states?
Citizenship by blood is the most traditional and common form of determining citizenship, as opposed to the rare rules that apply in the US.

[maxrandb]

97. Why should "we" decide

The children have broken no laws! The Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land), or at least it used to be, says nothing about the parents status. It's very simple. The Supreme Law of the Land states, rather simply, THIS:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your advocating changing the Constitution, not to enhance the rights of the people, but to take them away? Changing this amendment, whether you like to admit it or not, would deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and would deny to any person (this would be those you choose to criminalize) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

You're putting a standard on the parents behavior that is not there in the Constitution. How far do we take it? For example:

- The child of a felon. Hey, the childs parents broke the law. Why don't we deny citizenship to the children of prisoners.

- The child as a result of rape. Hey, the guy raped that girl, that childs the result of an illegal act. Let's deny that child citizenship too.

- There's a guy from Honduras serving in the US Navy on a VISA. His wife gives birth to a child in Norfolk, Virginia. Sorry, but your child has no rights. Thanks for your service.

- There are literally hundreds of thousands of Philipine Nationals serving in our armed forces today. Maybe we should send all their spouses and girlfriends back to Manilla to give birth.

- What about the case where only one of the parents is an illegal immigrant? Whether it be the male or the female, do we deny birthright citizenship to that child?

It could be a very slippery slope, and as some have argued, could result in an entire lower class of permanent non-citizens. We had that at one time in this country. It was called "slavery".

Wake-up. This ploy is nothing more than an attempt for the RW to appeal to our inner jingoism.

[Bridget Burke]

102. NOT "gifting" a child with US citizenship is not Constitutional

Good luck.

[Xithras]

100. Stateless? That's simply untrue.

Mexico, for example, extends citizenship to any child born in any nation if one of their parents is a Mexican citizen. The United States does the same thing, as do the majority of other nations in the world. Nations that don't have these types of laws on the books generally have poorly defined citizenship rules in the first place, making the problem largely irrelevant.

It's simply untrue that denying these babies American citizenship would make them stateless.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. See #74. -nt

[IndyJones]

134. Who is punishing the children by having the child retain the

citizenship of the parents?

[jberryhill]

71. The Constitution is not "another law" - it is the Constitution...

...and it says that if you are born in the US, then you are a citizen.

It doesn't matter what any law says, when the Constitution is that clear.

You can't just wave it away. You would have to amend it.

[IndyJones]

132. And some people think that they should be the only ones to NOT

have to follow the laws here. Go figure.

[Acadia Blue]

54. Intelligent Ireland now does not let the children of foreign workers

become naturalized citizens. BUT THEN THEY CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS WHO ARE ALREADY THERE AND ARE MORE OF A DEMOCRACY RATHER THAN A CORPORATIST STATE.

[JVS]

136. For Ireland this is a relatively recent concern, as the general flow...

of people has been out of Ireland for the last couple of centuries

[treestar]

55. Since they can't deport the illegals here, creating millions of

new ones - some of whom could end up stateless, no where to deport them - seems to be an attempt to create a permanent underclass of second class persons.

BS, we don't need this. More unnecessary distraction. This country has never been that elitist before. That's what made it great.

Who gives a **** honestly?

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. Ahnold in 2008!

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

77. As an anectode...

you won't believe how many questions we've had from people from all over the world (not just Latin America) asking about having a baby in the U.S., even though that's not the type of immigration we do. A U.S. citizen child can petition for his/her parents when he/she reaches 21 years of age (not 18; 21). Additionally, just having a baby in the U.S. does not necessarily prevent a deportation.

[The Traveler]

85. I want the border sealed

I want the flow of illegal immigrants stopped.

But ... the birthright is crucial. It cannot be lightly set aside. You born here, you are one of us. Pure and simple.

It would be compassionate and wise of us to integrate the parents of such children into our national fabric. But the children born here are Americans. By law and tradition. And if we turn our backs on that tradition then we will have slaughtered something precious about ourselves. This law and tradition are wise. We should learn from its example.

[depakid]

87. You are being sarcastic, I assume

Otherwise.... well, to say the very least- you're not sounding very practical.

[The Traveler]

90. Not at all

Just unintimidated by paradox. (I work with non-linear, chaotic systems on a daily basis.) Clearly, we cannot allow this to continue. It is merely a matter of capacity. What, then, shall we do with those who have built lives here? Well, that is a different matter entirely.

[depakid]

92. Not sure I get what you mean

I too work with systems science and am familiar with non-linear dynamics- and from that perspective you should see why what you are saying is utterly absurd.

You could approach the issue through agent based modeling and see what happens- and why "sealing off the border" or "stopping "illegal" immigration" through such means will always be a fools errand.

Since you're not intimidated by paradox- I'll toss one at you. Operation Gatekeeper in the mid-90's built walls and fences and increased to use of sensors on some of the more "popular" border crossing spots- much like what's being proposed today.

So, what do you think happened? (gotta think in systems).

Immigration actually increased substantially. Migration patterns simply shifted and were affected in such a way that it made border crossing more troublesome. So, seasonal workers who would otherwise have gone home again decided to stay on permanently. What's more- eventually, they brought their extended families too! (INS figures back this up).

And of course, criminal activity increased along with other unintended consequences.

You can read a bit about it here:

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Nevins104.htm

At the same time, NAFTA went through- which caused synergistic socioeconomic effects on both sides of the border:

see, e.g. Immigrant Surge is Tied to the Failure of NAFTA

"NAFTA's agricultural provisions resulted in a flood of subsidized corn being imported into Mexico from the United States. The effect in rural areas was that some 1.5 million rural families -- and some researchers claim twice that -- were driven out of business. Their only options were to move to the cities and seek whatever work, at whatever wage, could be found, or to cross the border. A very large number chose the second option.

Because NAFTA's labor rules did not provide Mexican workers with gains in workplace rights, the trade deal also hurt urban workers. Deprived of their ability to join unions or to organize, Mexican manufacturing workers saw their real wages fall by more than 20 percent over NAFTA's first five years.

Today, workers in the country's vast export manufacturing sector, the maquiladora factories, earn from one-fourth to half of their previous wages. Such pay does not even provide very basic necessities for a family. Many of these workers eventually choose the hardships and uncertainties of crossing the border over the certainty of long hours in unhealthy conditions for below-subsistence wages."

The way to deal with this from a non-linear systems perspective is to deal with the root causes of migration- deal with the systems- not the outputs (that's like forever putting your fingers in the holes of the dam).

The solution isn't to hold blindly to failed policies from the past- especially linear thinking ones- they're unenforceable much more expensive- on an ongoing basis- and in any event result in more unintended negative consequences.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0422-28.htm

[The Traveler]

94. You win the prize

You get it.

But, as impossible as "sealing the border" is through conventional means, one can sure make it tougher to get across while at the same time removing incentives.

For example, one could impose penalties on those who hire the illegal immigrant. And one could be serious about it.

We can't control the situation, but we sure can slow the rate and make things more manageable. (Around these parts, things are no longer manageable.)

I don't buy the guest worker program thing. That really worked out well for France. No .. I am much more comfortable with the idea of extending the franchise to those who are here. As you observe, an understanding of dynamics makes the "whys" of that obvious. We do not need to create another resentful underclass here.

I suspect that while we come at this from somewhat different perspectives, we aren't really that opposed in view. NAFTA is certainly part of the problem, but we also have to consider the notorious corruption of Latin American regimes (which our own government seems now determined to emulate). These people have a lot of reason to leave, and the only problem I have with the idea of accepting them here is the magnitude of the migration. We just can't practically absorb that many.

We can impede and deter this movement of people, but we cannot completely control it. And that is OK with me. We can handle the people that are already here if we throttle back on the number of arriving newcomers. In the long run, I believe it to our benefit to do so.

Still, your comments on "unintended consequences" ... those ring my bell. Still, we face that prospect regardless of what system we craft. Success comes not from trying to control the wave but in learning to surf with it. Sometimes, ya gotta cut in a bit hard ...

[Warren Stupidity]

93. How many trolls and naifs are signing up to repeal the 14th?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Keeping pushing the hate, the divisivness, this fear-mongering wedge issue dispatched by team rove to distract us from the issues that unite this nation of immigrants against the corrupt elites in power.

[alfredo]

96. I would read this legislation and any amendments carefully.

The reconciliation process will need to be watched, and bush's signing statement needs our watchful eyes.

I'd look for any language that widened the law to include children of US citizens and legal residents (at the discretion of the president). Removing the citizenship from critics could be a powerful tool in the hands of a dictator (decider).

[GoddessOfGuinness]

106. I agree.

You know the rethugs would do it in a heartbeat.

[alfredo]

112. I think bush can already yank the citizenship of people

he deems illegal combatants or terrorist. I don't know if that includes native born Americans or if it is only for naturalized citizens.

[struggle4progress]

126. What gave you that idea?

[alfredo]

127. I thought the Patriot act gave him the the power to

yank citizenship from naturalized citizens who he thinks is a terrorist.

[struggle4progress]

128. I'm certainly no expert -- but revoking naturalized citizenship ..

.. requires due process and cannot be arbitrary: http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

It is true that under the so-called PATRIOT II (which has never come to a vote, IIRC) the Administration sought power (contrary to the Constitution) to revoke ANYBODY's citizenship (born or naturalized) ...

[alfredo]

144. Could he use a signing statement or EO to give himself the

power? It appears anything bush does is legal because congress won't challenge him.

[sweetheart]

104. disenfranchisement and human rights stripping up for debate nt

[Hosnon]

107. I think the power to confer citizenship should vest in the citizens not

the borders.

Regardless of where a citizen gives birth, its children are citizens...but territory alone will not confer it.

I'm game...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Here's what happens in Japan, where there is no birthright citizenship

There are people whose ancestors were brought from Korea or China as slave labor in the 1920s, people whose grandparents were born in Japan, who cannot get Japanese citizenship unless they are willing to go through naturalization procedures and, in the process, give up their birth name and adopt a Japanese neame.

Traditionally, you became a Japanese citizen by being enrolled in the family register of a Japanese family. Until the late 1980s, it had to be one's father's family register, so that children of a Japanese father and foreign mother were home free, but the much more common situation in which the mother was Japanese and the father was foreign made the children stateless in the eyes of the Japanese government, unless they could be registered at their father's embassy.

These days, either parent can confer Japanese citizenship on a child, but it's still true that anyone who becomes a Japanese citizen has to give up his or her birth name and assume a Japanese name.

[JWS]

129. Jus Solis & Jus sanguinis

take that away from America and we are no longer america.

[primavera]

142. You gotta have something

Okay, we don't have to use jus solis, but jus sanguinus has its own set of problems and complications, just ask the Germans. And I'm afraid jus WASPus just isn't very consistent with the Constitution.

[Chemical Bill]

140. In Germany in 1935...

the Jews all lost their citizenship. Just sayin'....

Bill

[Bridget Burke]

141. A letter on the subject in the latest Houston Press....

I agree with Kent Probst <"Crack Down," Letters, May 4>: We should eliminate birthright citizenship.

But I don't think we should stop with the first generation. We should require all kids to pass some sort of "desirability" test when they reach 18, or risk being deported to the homeland of their ancestors. We could quickly get rid of some of the third- and fourth-generation losers we have here and make room for someone better. Hey, if you're not worthy, we'll send you back. Every person stands on their own.

www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2006-05-25/news/letters.html

[survivor999]

143. Hope it happens...

Or that they add certain restrictions (such as the parents having lived a certain number of years in the US)... As it is it's unfair, IMO... I've seen so many couples in the academic field come to the US for less than a year just to enough deliver a baby and then back... Now, why should this baby be automatically a US citizen and a person who's been in the US for many years busting their butt off not be automatically?...