Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, January 6, 2011

Kris Kobach proposing law preventing citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants

January 6, 2011

Advertisement

Kansas Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday helping unveil a proposal to prevent U.S. citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants.

Kobach, a Republican who will take office next week, was among a group of other Republican officeholders from several states proposing bills that would prevent babies born in those states of illegal immigrant parents from being citizens.

The right of U.S. citizenship for everyone born on American soil is part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. But Kobach and some legislators say that the amendment was not intended to apply to children of immigrants in the country illegally.

Comments

davidsmom 3 years, 9 months ago

I would like to see statistics on this, but birthright citizenship COULD be one of the larger drivers of illegal immigration. I think Kobach is right about the intent of the amendment and I think it should be changed to exclude children whose parents are both illegal immigrants, but stay the same if only one is a citizen or at least has a green card.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

At the time the Constitution was written I'm not sure there was such a thing as "illegal" immigration. My sister is a professional genealogy researcher and records were kept of people coming into the country to a certain extent but the borders were very porous. Most records are no more than ship records. Either way it will take a Constitutional amendment and I'm not sure the xenophobes have enough to muster it.

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Cait.....xenophobes? Really?
Don't you live in Canada? Do they allow a lot of illegal immagration? the answer is no.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

No I don't live in Canada. I was born in MO, grew up in Kansas and currently live six blocks from the KU campus. And yes I said and meant "xenophobes".

0

MyName 3 years, 9 months ago

The short answer is that Canada allows alot of legal immigration instead.

0

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Canada is a good example of allowing in as many immigrants as are necessary to fill the jobs available. Canada doesn't have the luxury of adopting American-style xenophobia.

What's ironic: conservatives should love Canada immigration - you can literally buy your family's way into the country by bringing adequate money to invest in a business start-up! Imagine if the U.S. started a similar plan to repopulate Buffalo, Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Fresno.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"I'm not sure there was such a thing as "illegal" immigration"

There wasn't. Pretty much all you had to do was show up and give up your citizenship from where you came from. There was nothing that kept anyone from stepping off the boat.

0

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, the Native Americans are infamous for their uncontrolled immigration policy.

They should have just passed a law similar to our approach: ordering the tide to stay off the shore, the sun to rise in the west, dogs to walk on their hind legs, and water to flow uphill. Undoubtedly, it would have been just as effective and allowed them to rage in moral indignation at the "lawbreakers" plaguing their world.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Nice rant. Were you trying to make some sort of point?

If you'd brush up on your reading skills a little, little jimmie, maybe you'd notice the post I replied to started with "At the time the Constitution was written," and neither of us were talking about what happened before then. But thanks for playing.

0

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Are you trying to say Indians weren't displaced by immigrants after the Second Constitution was written or that there were no Indians left by then?

ROFL - Avoiding the forest by running face first into a tree! Houws that stereo vision thingy workin fur ya?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Still working on that little reading comprehension problem, eh, little jimmie?

No, little one, what I was saying was that the post I replied to, and my own post, were referring to the the immigration policies of the United States of America, a nation created and whose policies were defined by the Constitution. We weren't referring to anything related to the indigenous peoples that were living here before that nation was created. Please do try to keep up.

Now, throw out some other unrelated facts to try to make it sound like you know what you're talking about, go find your imaginary friends and tell them you 'won' another argument, and wrench your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

0

Sean Livingstone 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm not sure if it's xenophobes, but I'm very sure when immigration first began, many non-Europeans were banned from this country and even Native Indians were denied citizenship.

Back to TopJayhawk's question.... do they allow a lot of illegal immigrants.... Canada? Well, no countries allow illegal immigration, however, nearly all developing and developed countries tolerated it. It all depends on how many illegal immigrants there are, and what are they doing in the country. America is unlike any other countries.... earlier immigrations were so liberal towards Europeans... that you basically walked up the shore and you became residents immediately. Of course, this is the problem.... because most Mexicans walked through the border the same easy way as Europeans did. So it's more difficult to implement laws to restrict illegal immigration without citing those days all over again.

As MyName stated correctly, Canada allows a lot of legal immigration. With such a big hole, the illegals have nowhere of fighting with the legals for jobs. It has shaped the landscape of Canada, of course, just like those earlier days when European immigrants dominated. Legal immigration allows a country to control the flow of workforces into the country.... but I'm sure citizens aren't very enthusisatic about new immigrants anyway......

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

"I'm not sure if it's xenophobes, but I'm very sure when immigration first began, many non-Europeans were banned from this country and even Native Indians were denied citizenship." Tell that to all of the Chinese and other Asian immigrants that came here to work on the railroads and such in the early to mid 1800's. There were Japanese families that had lines extending back all the way to the 1800's and couldn't speak anything but English who were interred during WWII. I roomied with the daughter of such a couple when I lived in Portland in the '70's. She was born after the war but her brother was born in the internment camp. Haven't been to the West Coast much, have you? Initially, American Indians weren't "denied citizenship". They were (and to an extent still are) treated as sovereign nations (conquered nations to be sure but still sovereign). But the truth is there has been so much intermarriage that I doubt there is any longer anymore than a handful of "pure" Indians in this country; much the same as black Americans.

0

booyalab 3 years, 9 months ago

Less than what it costs to support illegal immigrants.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

And you base that on what number you made up in your head?

0

booyalab 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, let's see. Illegal immigrants are here and have babies for as long as they aren't found and deported and the rates are increasing, as is the amount they receive from our massive welfare state and other public entities. Whereas a court case occurs once. So which one do you think is going to cost more?

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

Considering that the vast bulk of illegal immigrants use falsified SS info and have taxes and FICA withheld that they will never see refunds on; and also considering that no illegal immigrant will apply for food stamps or other governmental aid out of fear of deportation, I'm trying to figure out where all of these "dollars" we spend on them are actually going. Can you tell me that? Do you have statistics and documentation to prove anything you say that doesn't come from the FOX "News" channel?

0

Kylee Manahan 3 years, 9 months ago

That is so true. After living in Houston I witnessed how it worked. The pregnant woman came over the Rio and make residence (which was already done by her husband who was already here but living with a firend.) The woman would have the baby at the hospital and they were all of a sudden citizens. The hospital would ask about the father and the woman would say he is back in Mexican. Of course they have no jobs so since the baby is a citizen the mother receives all benefits of single mother, food stamps, aid to dependent children, etc. etc.

0

deec 3 years, 9 months ago

You might want to look up the meaning of the word"literally". Or cite some actual proof of your claim.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

True.

But if we have about 12-14 million illegal immigrants, which I've read, and 1/2 of those are women, that would be 6-7 million women.

Now let's say that 1/2 of those have children, that would be 3-4 million children.

Not at all unlikely, in my estimation.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

That's if they only have one child each, by the way.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 9 months ago

So, now he wants to re-write the 14th amendment.Could he find a REAL problem in Kansas to work on.Seeker is right, once again we will be the laughing stock of the country. Could this be one of the reasons people are leaving Kansas?

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

It's a matter of interpretation.

The only court case that I've read about in the 1800's supporting children of immigrants involved children of legal immigrants.

Although I think it would be better to simply repeal the amendment, and reword it, there may be a valid legal question here.

0

MyName 3 years, 9 months ago

It isn't a matter of interpretation. The amendment is clear: "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."

If you are born or naturalized in the U.S., you are a citizen of the U.S. and of the State where you reside. If they didn't pass this amendment, they would have been forced to either, 1) allow large numbers of freed slaves to remain as non-citizens or 2) expend alot of effort to go out and naturalize every single former slave in the country. Neither of those were good options.

And the main alternative to birth-right citizenship would be to change it so that if your parents were citizens, you can be too. This would solve the problems of illegal immigration in principle, but it still leaves the larger justice question unanswered: if your parents snuck into the country and you were born here or lived here your entire life, how long does it take before you get to be acknowledged to be as American as the rest of us?

0

Fossick 3 years, 9 months ago

What about "and subject to the jurisdiction of"? In what way does it qualify that blanket "born or naturalized"?

Not that I disagree with you - I think Kobach is incorrect here on the policy - but the words have to mean something, don't they?

0

libra101 3 years, 9 months ago

I think the "and subject to the jurisdiction of" was meant to exempt Native Americans that were subject to tribal laws and not necessarily to state and federal laws at the time. Some one correct me if I'm wrong on this.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes.

That's the phrase that's being debated.

0

Slowponder 3 years, 9 months ago

Has anyone seen Kobach's birth certificate? Does it have his picture on it? :-)

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

They're not thinking 20-25 years down the road. The purpose of an 'anchor baby' isn't just legitimizing the parents' presence in the country. It makes it much more difficult and complicated to deport the parent(s) when they have a dependent child who is a citizen.

0

staff04 3 years, 9 months ago

You say with such certainty that you know what these people are thinking. I've really wanted to know what my dog is thinking. Can you do that too, or is your gift limited to only knowledge of what other humans are thinking?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, first off, staph, I was merely stating fact - it IS a complicating factor to deportation. Hmm - I don't think I said anywhere that "All those lousy illegal immigrants are thinking if they have a baby it will make it harder to deport them."

But if I had claimed to know that was what they were thinking, ol' bud, you DO realize that in attempting to dispute my point, you would be laying claim to the same omniscience? Oh, but that's different ........

0

staff04 3 years, 9 months ago

Not quite turbo...

"They're not thinking 20-25 years down the road."

I guess I should have asked if you could tell me what my dog is NOT thinking.

I've made absolutely no statement that even remotely claims any kind of omniscience. I've commented about your apparent "power" and inquired about its reach to animals. Excuse me for my skepticism.

Before my other post I was actually going to point out the stark difference between Paul's and your posts. Notice how when he makes a reference to what people are thinking he says, "I doubt...?" That indicates to me that he isn't sure. The mark of an opinion.

On the other hand, your response is nothing like that. You are the one who has stated with no ambiguity that you know what others think (or, if it pleases you, what they do NOT think). Not me.

Anyway, peace out, cub scout.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

So - if someone implies something about what someone else is thinking (or, if it makes you happy, NOT thinking), and you say that's not true, you're not claiming to know what those people are (or are NOT) thinking?

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 9 months ago

And there we have it...

it is not about immigration at all, it is Mexicans you hate.

0

Ralph Reed 3 years, 9 months ago

What? Tom hates Mexicans also?

0

Sean Livingstone 3 years, 9 months ago

In a free market economy, citizenship is nothing. That's the spirit of true capitalism.....:)

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Here's yet another solution in search of a problem.

But for the xenophobic haters so well-represented on this forum, this distraction is welcome, and much better than addressing real problems.

After all, what could be better than deporting a kid who's spent their whole life here to a country where they have no support network, and likely don't even speak the language very well? Such a miserable fate would be fitting punishment for the actions of their parents.

Ah, Schadenfreude.

0

staff04 3 years, 9 months ago

The Republicans are reading the Constitution today in the House of Representatives. I wonder which lucky teabagger will be tasked with reading the 14th Amendment...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

So, let me get this straight. Kobach and other professional haters aren't really proposing this? It's all just a fictional "hot-button issue" created by the far-left?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

No name calling-- just accurate description.

And you didn't answer my question.

0

thebigspoon 3 years, 9 months ago

"I've heard as many as a few dozen states will try to adopt some form of serious immigration control."

Tom, my friend, you need to re-look at your beloved Constitution, and cite the portion that gives states the right and mandate to enact ANY kind of immigration law. There is NOT one. The states may legislate only items not specifically reserved to the FEDERAL government.

More importantly, there are, in Federal law, options to stem and/or control immigration, legal or illegal. The real problem, one that you will never address or even admit, is that the people and businesses who depend upon low-paid, non-powerful labor such as the illegals are have not been held accountable. If they were, the flow of illegals would be stemmed simply because there would be no incentive for them to come here, let alone stay. The party of business, your party, the Republicans, will never allow their constituent business owners to be punished when there is incentive for them to utilize these workers. And so there will be not only illegal workers but illegal families who have children who will become citizens precisely because those who cry loudest about them foster the situation by which they can not be stopped.

If you have a beef with the illegals (and I believe we as a nation actually do) then you must tell your Republican friends to get it together for the country and quit enabling the lawbreakers. One can not have it both ways: either WE obey our own laws, or we do NOT. Make a choie, Tom, to support all of America or to pick and choose which laws you do support. That, Tom, is the democratic/republic notion upon which this country was founded, and you can not change that without changing the basics of our law-making society.

Have a great day, Tom, and when you truly have thought through the whole issue and feel less lilkely to throw out your knee-jerk platitudes, I'd like to hear from you.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"First of all, your name-calling is telling me you're losing the argument"

The screen name at the beginning of the post should have told you that, Tom.

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

This country has had experience with denying citizenship to people born here based on the identity of their parents, and it wasn't pretty. African-Americans born here, born of parents who were born here, descended from individuals who were brought to this country involuntarily and illegally--but still not eligible for citizenship (until the 14th Amendment). Native Americans, whose ancestors were here before the European-Americans, forced from their ancestral lands, forced into reservations--and still not eligible for American citizenship. For decades after the signing of the Constitution, several American states restricted citizenship by religious affiliation. As a country, we decided a long time ago to do away with underclasses of people born in the USA but ineligible for citizenship, and for good reason. Why should we reject the lessons of our history and revert to a bad policy of the past? Insofar as illegal immigrants are a problem, it is the adults who have come over our borders, not the children of immigrants (legal or not) who are born here. Illegal immigrants who have American-born children can still be deported, and they are, despite all the talk about "anchor babies." My guess? Kris Kobach is trying to drum up some more private consulting business. He's not satisfied with his salary as Secretary of State, or the amount of visibility it gives him. I agree with the editorial in today's LJW.

0

Fossick 3 years, 9 months ago

"Native Americans, whose ancestors were here before the European-Americans, forced from their ancestral lands, forced into reservations--and still not eligible for American citizenship."

Native Americans are US Citizens and have been since the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924:

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property." Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.] SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924. See House Report No. 222, Certificates of Citizenship to Indians, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Feb. 22, 1924. Note: This statute has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(b).

0

kernal 3 years, 9 months ago

Exactly! And it took until 1924!!

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Kernal's point, Fossick, is that most of us don't want to go back to a situation in which persons born and raised on US soil aren't automatically entitled to citizenship and its rights.

0

Fossick 3 years, 9 months ago

Nor do I, but I don't think that was his point, because it fails for a couple reasons. First, a significant number of Native Americans were already citizens. In fact, Charles Curtis, who spent part of his boyhood on a reservation here in Kansas, would become Vice President 5 years later. This act only made non-citizen Indians citizens, not all Indians.

But second, and perhaps more importantly, if the 14th automatically made everyone born in the US citizens, then these Indians should already have been citizens. The fact that they had to be made citizens means that the 14th is not so cut-and-dried as some here assume.

I don't know exactly what it means, but I know the issue is more complicated than many here are saying.

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Begrudge the sick medical care and the elderly minimal means of support? What would Jesus do?

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Jesus healed the sick, no questions asked and no payment required, Jew and non-Jew alike. He taught people to live simply and donate all they could to the poor. He taught that the rich hardly have a chance to achieve salvation. He told people to pay their taxes.

0

woodscolt 3 years, 9 months ago

Protecting the tax payer at the expense of the tax payer while ripping them off. Now theres a truck load of brains at work there mooch

0

kernal 3 years, 9 months ago

Are you saying get illegal immigrant grandma on social security? And how do you think she will qualify for that? Just asking.

0

Katara 3 years, 9 months ago

A fake social security card is not going to qualify you for social security benefits.

If you actually read the link you posted, you'd realize that the reason people are trying to get fake social security cards is so that they can get a job (Please note the comments about which employers don't check them).

This means that the person with a fake social security card and who has obtained employment is paying in to a system that they cannot collect from. The payroll taxes are deducted from their paycheck but to try to apply for any form of benefits would mean that the fraudulent social security number would be discovered & so would their status which leads to being deported.

0

GoodGirl 3 years, 9 months ago

I agree with Katara. There is no way a person with fake SS will be able to access any benefits through SS office.

0

bendover61 3 years, 9 months ago

Good Man. I don't hate Mexicans, I hate everyone.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

LOL. Patently unconstitutional theatre, just like forcing people to buy a product from a corporation because they are American. The left and the right in this country are entertaining their bases with shadow puppets while the middle class loses their homes and struggle to make ends meet.

I suppose we deserve what we get for giving the loons on both sides of the aisle the chance they wanted to change our country for their better.

.

0

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, I'm happy the Secretary is devoting 100% of his time to the job and not pursuing his private loonyness on the taxpayers dollar.

Only in Kansas is there no money for the poor but plenty of money to spend on elective lawsuits.

0

libra101 3 years, 9 months ago

Oh it's not just Kansas, we'll have lots of company, when the courts smack all of this down.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Perhaps an overreaction.

Why should children of those illegally here be citizens? Is that a reasonable policy? Do all other countries share that policy? Are there unintended consequences of it?

I'm not at all sure that the amendment was intended for this purpose, especially since the country was quite different at the time. Things change, and our laws/policies should change as well if the old ones are no longer working well.

0

Fossick 3 years, 9 months ago

"Things change, and our laws/policies should change as well if the old ones are no longer working well."

Sure there is all that, but it's still easier to call your opponents Nazis.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Why should children of those illegally here be citizens?"

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.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

I understand that's the amendment that pertains.

But is it a good policy? Does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" affect the interpretation? Can it be changed? Etc.

When that amendment was written, it was written in a given time and place, with a given purpose. Many of those may have changed now - shouldn't we consider that?

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Kobach himself once argued in favor of going after employers instead of employees. He praised Arizona for taking this approach back in 2007, in a law review article. Well, now the Obama administration is taking this approach. But instead of being pleased with the results, Kobach turned around and claimed that this policy isn't working and Arizona needed a different law. Why? Two reasons: 1) The big employers who hire illegals (not the bitsy restaurants), such as slaughterhouses, are wealthy Americans who tend to support Republican candidates. No way that they are going to endorse policies that charge them hefty fines or send them to jail. 2) Kobach made himself a bundle of money as a "consultant" crafting the Arizona (and similar) laws, and he has already contracted with them for his legal services (at $200+ per hour) to defend such laws in federal court.

0

Danimal 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm a fairly conservative guy, and I hate this. Granted most of my ancestors were already here well before the US was an itch in the Founder Father's pants, but that's beside the point. The real issue is that this is a blatant attempt to illegally circumvent the Constitutional amendment process because they know they can't get the 75% majority required to do it legally. Part of the promise of America is that if you're born here, regardless of who your parents are and where they came from, you're an American. The real solution is the overhaul of our immigration system that politicians on both sides have been promising us for 35 years, not raping the Constitution. Of course, that would require leadership, compromise and intelligence, which both parties are sorely lacking these days.

0

nekansan 3 years, 9 months ago

Funny how fast people forget how to read the constitution.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 9 months ago

The Constitution grants this to persons who are born in the United States and our pretty boy Kobach thinks he can make a law changing the Constitution. This alone says all we need to know about the qualifications of this guy to serve in any elected office. I cannot believe that Kansans actually voted for this wonk, but as P.T. Barnum once said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People"

0

George_Braziller 3 years, 9 months ago

How did this guy graduate from law school? He must have flunked Constitution law.

With his "logic" and xenophobia, if an illegal immigrant has a child in the US he wants the child to be treated as an illegal immigrant as well. What about the next generation? Does he also consider that child an illegal alien?

I'd LOVE to hear his his argument on that one.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

What's wrong with the argument?

It seems to me that children born of illegal immigrant parents here should not be automatically citizens of this country.

0

George_Braziller 3 years, 9 months ago

Try reading the 14th amendment to the Constitution. That's what's wrong.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Amendments have been added and subtracted from the Constitution - remember Prohibition?

At the time, it may have made sense, especially in regards to children of freed slaves, but I think it makes hardly any sense today, especially with the problem of illegal immigration we have now.

0

George_Braziller 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, let's just send a few million grand, great, great-grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren of all those English, Irish, and Germans born from ancestors who stowed away in ships and entered the country illegally.

Kobach's "logic" is that if you are the spawn of anyone who entered the country illegally you should be deported. Are you sure that you'd make the cut?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

The fact that someone stowed away on a ship doesn't mean they entered the country illegally. As a matter of fact, prior to 1875, nobody entered the country illegally.

Can't speak for jafs, but as for myself, yes, I'm sure I'd make the cut.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes.

And, laws aren't applied retroactively like that - it would apply from the time it was changed, and not before.

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostikc and Babboy, When TomShewmon resorts nasty personal comments, it's his way of admitting that he has lost the argument. Ungracious, but evident to every reader.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, there's quite a lot of debate about the 2nd as well.

It seems to have been concluded that the wording assumes a pre-existing right to bear arms.

But I think it's important to understand our constitution in context - don't you?

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 9 months ago

OH "Americans are Americans"...if they're white, male and make more than 200k/year (or like Tom who has a wife that does it for them while they sit on the couch and yell for a sammich and a beer while they watch "the game"). Paying off the GOP is a lot cheaper than just paying taxes. "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all." G. K. Chesterton

0

RogerMidtown 3 years, 9 months ago

Mexican citizenship law contradicts anchor baby amnestyPosted by Frosty Wooldridge on .By Frosty Wooldridge

Last month, U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s anchor baby Dream Act amnesty burned down in flames. But Washington DC insiders predict the bill will surface again in the future.

What does the bill advocate? It allows an estimated 2.1 million Mexican anchor babies born to illegal alien parents within U.S. borders to enjoy instant citizenship. That in turn would allow those ‘citizens’ to sponsor countless millions of their family into the U.S. via ‘chain migration’ or ‘family reunification’. Long time activist, Michelle Dallacroce, director at www.MothersAgainstIllegalAmnesty.com researched a little known fact about the Mexican Constitution. What did you discover about Mexican children born in foreign lands and how does it affect the Dream Act amnesty for anchor babies? “Liberation!” said Dallacroce. “Anchor babies and US Citizenship are not and never have been the direction we as a country should choose. But we have for the last five years because as usual the Americans are always reacting to the actions of the open border clan. “It was staring us right in the face! But we just didn’t look! Instead of trying to defend and protect the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution against children born to their illegal alien females while crossing our borders, we never looked at the Constitution of the country of these women who were birthing these children. “That is where this story should begin and that is where it should end! The Mexican Constitution, Chapter II, Article 30, paragraph II, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory. There you have it! Anchor Babies are not U.S. citizens! They are citizens of Mexican according to the Mexican Constitution. “April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that “We will not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US territory. Further, he states that “he was going to use all diplomatic and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the United States.” “A birth certificate is not in itself anything but a piece of paper. Just like a marriage license! Until you go to the church and get the blessing from your church then and only then is that “Marriage License” a valid marriage. The birth certificates that these illegal alien mothers have acquired are nothing more than a piece of paper without the full authority of allegiance to the United States of America. These illegal alien infants born in the USA are unable to swear allegiance to the USA and are unable to be automatically bestowed and granted something that they have never sworn allegiance too! “

0

voevoda 3 years, 9 months ago

Mexico is entitled to define citizenship as it chooses. It does not have anything to do with US law, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
The DREAM act did not have to do with "anchor babies"--that is, children born in the USA. They are citizens of the US, without question. It was a way to regularize the status of adults who were brought illegally to the US as children, and have grown up here. If the issue is extending invitations to legal residence for the parents who brought the children to the US illegally in the first place, it is quite possible to craft a law limiting this option. The naturalized children would need to assume financial responsibility for the relatives they sponsored--that's the rule anyway. So what's the hysteria about?

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

US law is not "enshrined" in anything - it's based on the constitution, which has and can be amended, and has been interpreted in differing ways over time as well.

There's nothing sacred about the 14th amendment, any more than there was about the 39th (Prohibition, if I got the number wrong).

0

verity 3 years, 9 months ago

This right also has more than a century of precedence from the Supreme Court, i.e. United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Of course, precedence no longer seems to matter to our right-wing, activist Supreme Court.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

"precedents"

And, if that's the case I think it is, it involved children of legal immigrants, not illegal ones, which is an important distinction, I think.

0

GoodGirl 3 years, 9 months ago

So does that mean when I go have a child in a Hospital I would have to prove that I am a legal US citizen, alien, etc... As a US Citizen I will be quite pissed off when they will ask me for that. Or will I be ok if i look and sound white???? This is such BS.

0

GoodGirl 3 years, 9 months ago

Wonder how much would that cost all of us, taxpayers, since the government would have to verify legal status for ALL babies - I think that would be under Due Process and Equal Rights amendments... or do those not count either?????

0

Alceste 3 years, 9 months ago

Is the broke, busted state of Kansas paying for this nimrod to do all this grandstanding in Washington, D.C.? I strongly suspect WE are paying this nimrod's ride 100%. Good grief....

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.