Rethinking Citizenship

[Terri]

Rethinking Citizenship

Matt Hayes
Fox News
January 23, 2003

I looked in my immigration law practice's scheduling book, and saw a blank space after Irma's name. She did not leave a telephone number and had refused to tell our receptionist what the purpose of her appointment was, so we had to wait until she arrived to find out why she wished to see us.

When Irma arrived, she looked as if she could give birth at any moment. After two of us helped her into a chair, she explained that she had no immigration status and that her husband was in Ecuador. She said that their baby was expected in a week, and she wanted to find out if any immigration benefits would be available to her and her husband when the baby was born.

Irma was one of the tens of thousands of women who enter the U.S. each year with a single purpose in mind. It is not employment, or even a desperate effort to make out some claim for legal immigration status. It is to give birth to a child within the borders of the United States. Some run across borders at night, others enter on tourist visas and stay as long as it takes to give birth.

Full Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76340,00.html )

Here's another way our tax dollars are leaking out of the country or maybe flowing is a better word. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Happy]

Irma reminds me of the black girls who don't get married when pregant. I counted 17 birth announcements in the paper last week. They want their babies paid for and then sign them up for the womb to tomb free care. I don't understand this kind of goverment.We have white girls who do this but it is mostly black ones.They want everything for nothing.

[Saber]

This story reminds me of shortly after 9/11 and the southern border was all jammed up with security (what a change) and there were reportedly a WHOLE bunch of VERY pregnant mexicans around who were just literally waiting to get over the border to have these babies. I remember reading that they ended up just kinda squating in the bushes. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[VeteranWW2]

Observations and criticism are
pretty easy to offer...but how about some ideas about how the situation should be and can be changed?

Like the liberals who are quick and easy
at criticizing conservative efforts, bills offered in congress included, but never have reasonable ideas or plans as a alternate.

This is the greatest nation in the world so
people cannot be blamed for wanting to be a part of it and sharing in its bounty.

[Terri]

A couple of comments here, the problem of births out of wedlock cuts across race. It is true that the percentages have been higher in minority races but that may be more a result of poverty than anything else.

I believe the reason that such babies are called "anchor" babies is because of the high percentage of women coming by ship from Asia and other parts of the world to give birth here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

If we changed the law that automatically gives citizenship to anyone who is born here we would no longer have human beings trying desperately to give birth here. The image of Hispanic women giving birth in a field is horrific.

WWII, are you advocating that people should enter our country illegally?

Yes, I can give you a reasonable plan. It's very simple. Let's enforce our laws and protect our borders.

Are you not concerned that there may be more than poor women coming across our borders illegally? Some of those people crossing may very well be carrying biological weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is the greatest nation in the world so
people cannot be blamed for wanting to be a part of it and sharing in its bounty.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LEGALLY!!! * They need to follow our laws. We should not welcome lawbreakers. *

People of the world have no right to enter our country illegally nor do they have a right to citizenship in our country. They need to apply for this and wait until they are accepted.

[jhf]

Hi, Terry, et al,

I believe the term &quot;anchor babies&quot; refers to the fact that these babies provide an &quot;anchor&quot; for their parents (and other extended family) in this country.

There are some who argue that the constitution is being misapplied to these babies. They argue that the constituion says that those who are here must be subject to the laws of the land. They argue that it doesn't apply to babies. (Perhaps some &quot;constitutional scholar&quot; can clarify that.)

They taught us at the Border Patrol Academy that there are two ways to acquire citizenship. &quot;Jus solis&quot; (please help me with the latin, if necessary) means &quot;law of the place&quot; and is the doctrine which applies to the babies. Birth in the U.S. has always conveyed citizenship. &quot;Jus sanguinis(sp?)&quot; means &quot;law of the blood&quot;, and applies to those who derive citizenship because one or both of his or her parents are/were citizens. (I believe the foregoing is accurate but after 33 years, who the hell knows.)

If all else fails, it might be time to &quot;tune up&quot; the &quot;old Constitution&quot; a bit. It's an incredible document, but may be a bit out of date after more than 200 years. Yes, I know that we should be careful when we start tinkering with it.

Last but not least, guess we could administer pregnancy tests to all of the &quot;fairer sex&quot; as they enter the country.

[Floridaguy]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe the term &quot;anchor babies&quot; refers to the fact that these babies provide an &quot;anchor&quot; for their parents (and other extended family) in this country.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Correct jhf, I was just going to say that myself. There are far more women every year who come across our borders from Central or South America (mostly Mexico) with the sole intention of giving birth than years and years of those coming by boat from Asia or wherever else.

Terri, once again, you are right, and as we all have said, half of our country's problems, be they illegal immigration, welfare for illegals, crimes committed with guns, etc., etc., all boil down to simple lack of enfrocement of existing laws. Sometimes, we don't need to change the laws on the books, and heaven forbid, tamper with the Constitution unnecessarily. Can't we start with just enforcing the laws that we have, that do work, but are ignored?

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[Terri]

Thanks for straightening me out, guys! *I knew I could count on you! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin5.gif

This is an unintended consequence of the 14th amendent, right?

Here's a FAIR Issue Brief on the subject.

http://www.americanpatrol.c om/REFERENCE/anchorbaby_FAIR.html

[pRIMrose]

There is such a thing as &quot;overloading&quot; the boat. Sure, we're the richest country on the planet and have the most to offer. But for how long?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not addressing this abuse, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

By not closing this loophole, the federal government in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing illegal aliens to give birth to American citizens, in effect, makes citizenship a license for welfare. [Peter Brimelow. National Review, April 7, 1997.][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It isn't rocket science. If this problem is at the astronomical proportions it is already, just think what it will be in another 20 years if gone unchecked. The states suffering the worst are already unable to balance their budgets ~ by the billions, not millions. Just how big a hit can the taxpayer absorb in the name of &quot;compassion&quot;?

The 14th Amendment needs to be revisited ~ or at least re-evaluated and interpreted like it was meant to be before there was an INS or millions and millions of illegals dragging down the social services in so many states.

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twocents.gif

[jhf]

Thanks for the link, Terri; clarifies the issue very well.

I agree with &quot;Florida Guy&quot;; the present laws are more than adequate. Even the poor old INS (of which I was a part for about 28 years) could work if someone would just tell them to go out and enforce the law. The new DHS isn't going to help a damn bit unless the mandate changes, and there's no evidence that that's going to happen.