Prevent babies' citizenship, group says

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/11444019328520.xml&coll=2

Group wants illegal immigrants' `anchor' citizenship removed

KELLI HEWETT TAYLOR
News staff writer

The Alabama Federation of Republican Women wants to take away the citizenship of babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States, and the group is using baby dolls to make the point.

The members have dressed the dolls with handmade oil-cloth bibs proclaiming "$118 Billion Anchor Baby." The figure illustrates an estimate of the annual cost to provide government services, such as food, education and health care, to these families, according to the group's research.

Any child born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. To change that, a bill to amend the Constitution would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate, and then be presented to the states for approval.

Those U.S.-born babies are sometimes called "anchors" for their role in securing an illegal immigrant family's stay in the country. However, the babies don't mean automatic citizenship for the parents.

You hate the constitution and want to replace it with the bible so get on with it. Make your move and see if the majority of Americans will salute. They won't and you know it you tighted pussed little sexually repressed spineless facist bitches. Defenseless babies have no excuse but none of you whores deserve constitutional liberties.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Someone calls it like it is.

The constitution (and the freedoms and right it provides) is too good for these low-lifes.

Go start a dictatorial theocracy somewhere else.

:grr:

Its a big place. They could put a wall up around it (I'd be more then happy to pay for it) and all the fundies could move there and anyone who doesnt want to deal with that bullshit could leave Texas and stay at my place until they get back on their feet. I've got couch space!

They obviously would fit in much better in a place like Iran.

Just anyplace but out in the world amongst normal people.
Let them have the moon for christ's sake just get them the fuck out and let us have our country back.

some "nice" place in the middle of the desert...Iran is actually a nicer place than you think- just the people running the place are crackers. Center of Saudi peninsula might be good- big desert, nothing else there.

and they'd declare war on Utah, which would be ugly.

I was thinking more along the lines of Outer Mongolia.

And good luck with that.

don't give them any place. Give them the FEMA trailer parks to live in. They are the real trailer trash in this country, elitist old bags.

Please don't lay this bullshit at the feet of Christianity. The Bible is clear about the responsibility to care for the sojourner.

This is a lot of things. But Christian ain't one of 'em.

Love it!

:thumbsup:

"cost" of new life in the US.

If you put a price tag on new life, then why don't you object to poor Americans having babies in addition to immigrants having babies?

That's their logic.

There was an LBN thread about it a week or so ago maybe.

The idea is, if people stop having abortions, there won't be a market for illegal aliens to fill.

:eyes:

The "color of your skin" apparently matters now. :(

The good news is the 14th Ammendment will be very hard to overturn. No way they can get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states.

Once it's born, though, pfffft, forgetaboutit.

my husband is a legal resident alien and we are not elgible for food stamps or most government services. At least that's what the guy at INS said when he got his green card.

Because they're Americans by birth, the green card rules don't apply to them. Their parents can't get services legally.

What a disgusting bunch of bigots, going after children. You know, those Republican women ought to be in favor of repealing the 19th amendment too.

a law that allows any child born in the US to become a citizen immediately. That allows them to be eligible for the services. It also usually allows for the mother to become a citizen because the child needs her. The states that have the most trouble with this are Texas and California because they are the border states but this does happen in other states because a female worker is pregnant.

Anyone born in the US is a citizen. But citizenship is not conferred on either parent.

The law has no specifications on the parent of a citizen becoming a citizen. There are provisions concerning spouses of citizens gaining citizenship, but it isn't any easier for the parent of a citizen to become a citizen. The law simply doesn't touch on the issue at all.

even though we did not help her come here or ask for citizenship she got it before he did. No marriage - only a baby.

fucking prejudice, not tight pussed whores, but floppy dangling lipped whores!!

selectively pro-life, as long as they are white? KARL ROVE IS JUST LOVING EVERY MINUTE OF THIS.

His new red-herring tactic is working brilliantly.

I've often argued with Pro-lifers about this, if you are PRO-LIFE then why are you using birth control???

what the hell is wrong with people.

This reeks. My, bigotry is ugly. Even just reading about it.

From the Houston Chronicle:

What history can tell us about anti-immigrant zeal

By CRAGG HINES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

THE sharp-edged, vigilante tone of the current immigration debate is as old as it is regrettable.

Today's rancor sounds all too familiar to academics who mine the often-neglected field of immigration history and to politicians who are beginning to pay attention to some startling findings.

California state Sen. Joe Dunn remembers being "absolutely devastated" as he read the story of concerted government action to force at least 400,000 Hispanics out of the United States as economic woes mounted in the Great Depression. Some historians estimate total Hispanic departures at closer to 2 million if the tally includes families, fearing deportation or further financial hardship, whose departure was nominally voluntary......

Most alarming, Dunn, D-Santa Ana, said, was that up to 60 percent of those forcibly stampeded across the border, some on locked trains, were U.S. citizens. So-called "repatriations," at least in those instances, were actually illegal forced removals from a homeland.

It is as shocking as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, except that very few people know about it.

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/hines/3774368.html

Many of the US citizens deported were children born here. Even the immigrants were expelled for being Mexicans--NOT for being "illegal."

She and all of her siblings were born here and her father was a legal citizen. Her mother was in the process. While the father was away on business, the INS deported the whole family. He came home and his family was gone.

That's an exceedingly generous way of putting it. More accurate would be "...according to imaginary figures pulled directly from their asses."

were afforded U.S. citizenship for their progeny.

At one time, I'm sure many would have been in favor of keeping groups like the Irish and Italians out.

they don't even help with visa problems. I worked with a guy who was here on a work visa, he and his wife had applied for permanent residency but it was taking INS forever to process the paperwork. It looked like his visa was going to expire (his wife had more time on hers) before he got a permanent one. If that had happened, he would have had to leave the states, and get a new visa to get back into the country. The fact that they had a child that was a citizen did not help at all. Fortunately, the paperwork on the permanent visa was finished in time.

with both sides. The mother and her Jamaican born son where given citizenship because of her new American born baby. This womans brother was here on a student visa and married an American citizen but had to return to Jamaica so that they could investigate him further since he was Rastafarian. He was allowed to return when the investigation was completed.

could have probably cleared up all those problems a lot quicker by writing a large check to the RNC.

by calling Wellstone's office. Actually, he didn't think he could call a U.S. Senator's office, so I did it for him. Scared him to death one day when I leaned over his cube wall and told him to come to my cube because the Senator's office was on the phone for him. At the time, he was most impressed and thought I must be a real important Democrat, I did correct that idea by convincing him that anyone could contact their senator and pointing out that Wellstone appeared to have someone in the office whose area of expertise was visas.

Would you instead become a citizen at a certain age or by petition? And for how many generations would a person have to prove their ancestors were citizens in order to be a citizen themselves? Would a doctor have to ask for citizenship papers before they delivered a baby?

I don't expect any answers to these questions. And I don't expect a repeal of the 14th Amendment anytime soon, if ever. This a cold-hearted response to the immigration problem. I have a problem with the current practice where one parent or both is deported while the kids stay. Separating families is not right but I don't necessarily thing the kids should leave along with the parents either.

What to do about split status families? Is it right that a family of four with one American child get deported with or without the baby? Is it right to treat that family differently than another family of four where none have legal claim? I think that the case of one American child in the family puts the whole family in line for legal residency but I worry that it also means that those families who haven't had a child here but have been here as long will get the short end of the stick. Frankly, it's the mixed citizenship status cases that make it clear to me that deportation is not a practical solution.

By making children born here non-citizens if there parents are not citizens is problematic because it makes citizenship tribal (citizenship by bloodline) as opposed to universal (citizenship by soil). This degrades the fundamental character (and greatest strength) of the American Republic: its universality.

That's what I was trying to get at. If they do this, then we might as well return to the days when only property owners (and white men) could vote. Heck, why not revoke citizenship from everyone who cannot prove their ancestors were on the Mayflower. :sarcasm:

Or, ARF! for short. ;-)

Just plain hateful

on the one hand, we are offering amnesty to anyone who has been here 5 years or longer.

but what happens is that it encourages more to come here, knowing that if they can stay here long enough, without getting deported, they too, will be offered amnesty. that is the reality of that policy.

it isn't stopping them from coming, it is encouraging them. the same with the policy of illegal cubans making it ashore in florida. if they can get on land without being stopped, they are IN.

giving citizenship to any baby born here, even if the mother is here illegally, does the exact same thing.

if the mother can get here and have the baby, the chances of her being deported, are slim. once here, it is the "anchor" that the rest of the family can use to get here, while we eagerly provide healthcare, welfare, food stamps, and even translators to assist in filling out all of the forms to receive the healthcare, welfare, foodstamps.

if we agree that we can't continue to accept everyone, due to the sheer numbers involved, then we need to address it all levels.

flame me, but i have absolutely NO PROBLEM with not giving citizenship to an illegal immigrant because it happens to pop out of mother on this side of the border.

i do NOT want to become a spanish speaking nation. and, although we are well on our way, i do NOT want to become a third world nation.

if illegals are not stopped, we WILL become both of the above. it is only a matter of time.

if they truly wanted to become american, they would learn the language, not insist on everything being in two languages, and when they felt strong enough, politically, to march for the right to become an american, they would fly the american flag, and not the mexican. that act right there shows where their loyalty lies.

a great quote, here:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

what roosevelt said did not mean that all newcomers forget their ancestry and history. but becoming an american means just that. if you don't want to BE an american, but instead just want all the benefits we offer, STAY HOME.

DING DING DING! Idf, you're our grand prize winner!
...it isn't stopping them from coming, it is encouraging them...
...although we are well on our way, i do NOT want to become a third world nation...

The REAL problem is that it's American business and government who are encouraging illegals to come. Why? Because it cheapens wages and weakens the power of labor--because they WANT to turn America into a third world nation. Their idea of "reform" is to reward illegal immigrants with amnesty and possible citizenship while sighing "We can't deport eleven million people." Don't they realize that such a policy will encourage even more illegals to come? OF COURSE THEY DO!

Nothing is being said about doing more to tighten our borders, enforce work visas, escalate deportation, get Mexico to cooperate, and punish businesses and subcontractors who hire illegal workers. Nothing is being said about the immigrants in this country who ARE trying to play by the rules. And nothing is being said on behalf the unemployed Americans who would be more than happy to do the jobs illegals do if they paid a liveable wage.

Illegal immigration is a complex issue which requires a multi-faceted solution. But it won't be reformed until it is impossible to sneak into this country, impossible to get a job if you succeed at sneaking in, and impossible to achieve instant American citizenship. We simply cannot tolerate rewarding people for illegal behavior (of both the immigrants and their employers). Children of illegal immigrants should be sent home with their parents and be allowed to re-enter the country at the age of 18 if they can speak English, have graduated high school and do not have criminal records.

:headbang:
rocknation

America, I guess they(it) has not seen very many credit reports from Americans,

I see them EVERYDAY in the mortgage business, and so many Americans have thousands and thousands of dollars in MEDICAL COLLECTIONS due to no insurance or their insurance not paying the hospitals.

OH MY GOD, FUCK THIS LOWERING OF WAGES BY THE IMMIGRANTS, ITS FUCKING CONGRESS WHO HAVE NOT RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE OF $5.15 AN HOUR SINCE 97.... How stupid.........

How MANY Americans do you know that work for $5.15 an hour not many, they are on welfare instead cause it pays more.

EVERY year for themselves - what a coinky-dink!

That's definitely one of the "facets" of real immigration reform. Raise the raise to a liveable level and make it illegal to pay ANYONE less!

:headbang:
rocknation

Whats next, a rant on how dangerous gays are and how they are ruining familys?

Illegal immigrants are not granted automatic citizenship because their child was born here. And nice job with the xenophobic rant. Look out everyone! We'll become a Spanish-Speaking Nation! And Teddy Roosevelt...symbol of U.S. Imperialism and extreme nationalism...wow. Theodore Roosevelt, someone who believed in "white-man's burden". Well, if HE said it, it must be so! :eyes:

But why should the offspring of illegals be granted automatic citizenship? I'm not talking about the legality (constitutionality) of it, but in terms of the wisdom of the policy.

To me, a couple things need to be pointed out. One, it's not uncommon for such people to be denied citizenship. In many countries, native-born people are automatically citizens except in two cases: they are born to diplomats; the parents were in the country unlawfully, or broke the law at some point (which sort of amounts to the same thing). Some countries also have other restrictions, such as that one of the parents must be a citizen of the country for the child to qualify for citizenship.

There are at least three good reasons why illegals' offspring should not be granted citizenship automatically. One, it sends the wrong message, that crime pays, by rewarding people who jump the queue. Two, and along the same lines, people who by accident of geography do not have the opportunity to cross a porous border (and who may be fleeing much harsher conditions than those found in Mexico) are punished for playing by the rules and going through a lengthy application process. Three, it has all sorts of economic ramifications, as for instance U.S. taxpayers are forced to pay for illegals' healthcare.

A guest worker program may or may not be the solution (I haven't studied the specifics of it), but the illegals should have to wait longer to acquire citizenship than a regular applicant, and there should be provisions so that they don't abuse the system.

why should the offspring of illegals be granted automatic citizenship?

Because Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen:

"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."

I'm not talking about the legality (constitutionality) of it, but in terms of the wisdom of the policy.:D

You just did.

oh scuse me "illegal immigrants", are also with-holding, gay hate, welfare people hate, legal immigrant hate, etc.

Somehow I doubt that bigotry would contain itself to one population.

Just wondering...

What does illegal immigration have to do with gays, welfare recipients and the like? The illegal aliens are a visible minority, I suppose, but that's purely academic. Would it make a difference if they were blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedes?

Two more questions. Should people be allowed or even encouraged to break the laws of the United States? Is it rational -- economically or otherwise -- to allow them to cross the borders and obtain residency illegally, along with all that that entails? As to the first question, only one answer is defensible. As to the second, I don't purport to have the answer. Some people argue that they provide much needed cheap labour for jobs the natives won't take. Others say that they drive wages down. Some believe they take more out of the country than they put in, while others believe the opposite. I haven't done a cost-benefit analysis to determine if illegals justify their presence economically. However, I don't feel one should be ostracized for questioning the wisdom of the current U.S. policy.

I'm going to guess, most likely.

those Alabama Republican women heh? So Christian. Always on the cutting edge of human rights, those Alabamaians.