"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
Born Here Means Automatic US Citizenship - Should We Change That?
By Warner Todd Huston (11/13/05)
You may have heard the term
"anchor baby"?
This term is used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to describe babies born within the borders of the USA, its territories and protectorates to foreign nationals, babies that are then used by these illegal immigrants to gain access to US
social services as well as entry into the country.
As things stand today, any child born within US territory is an automatic
citizen. And, since we are a compassionate people, we cannot just have
babies running around as citizens without allowing their parents some
legitimacy, even if shadowy, to live in the US to raise and support that
child. Hence, the "anchor" part of the moniker. Illegals have babies to make
sure that they are allowed to stay in this great country more often than is
comfortable, for sure.
Congress may be
re-visiting this concept and looking toward taking away the automatic part of being born a citizen for some, instituting stricter guidelines.
UPI quoted Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) as saying, "There is a general
agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be
bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country
illegally". And he is only echoing many that feel the same way.
It cannot be said that we haven't a problem with immigration, our security
also cannot be ignored, and the costs of illegals availing themselves of our
generous social programs is a huge problem, so stricter requirements for
citizenship is a proper subject to discuss. Still, we are a compassionate
people and we must approach this issue with care. Further more, this is the
land of opportunity as well as a country built upon immigration and we
mustn't change that aspect of our nation over a temporary border problem
with our neighbor or a security issue that will not always stay imminent.
Some lawmakers, however, are saying that such a change could only be made by
a Constitutional convention to somehow change the
href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14">14th Amendment
href>, created in 1866 to allow former slaves to attain citizenship
following the Civil War. I think these lawmakers might be correct.
A proposal to limit the automatic citizenship for some children is by
parsing the word "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Here how the 14th amendment begins:
"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."
One might construe "jurisdiction" as not applying to a child born to
illegals because the child's parent's allegiance to their home country is
assumed to be preeminent. And if the parents do not hold an allegiance to
the USA, neither will the child as it grows up. In that case the
"jurisdiction" of said state or the federal government does not apply since
no fealty to said government will be observed by that child.
But this is a reach that strains credulity for a constructionist such as
myself. (After all, a child born of perfectly patriotic parents might grow
up to be the next Michael Moore!)
Obviously, the Amendment was aimed at making former slaves into legal
citizens of the country and was not aimed at illegal aliens who enter the
USA just for its social programs. After all, the Congress of 1866 didn't
have any such programs to offer and the problem was not one they could have
foreseen. But a failure of foresight in this case is not a sufficient reason
to alter the Constitution today.
Let us look at the Amendment's language. It says, "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States". It
doesn't say all persons whose parent's first vowed fealty to the USA are
citizens, it says ALL people born here are citizens. And, it is quite plain
that "jurisdiction" simply meant within the confines therein and was not
being used in any other way.
I have to say that anyone trying to write laws that restricts citizenship
further than the 14th Amendment are not only barking up the wrong tree but
are looking to alter a fundamental aspect of the American system. We have,
since inception, imagined that this country would be a haven for those
looking for a better life for themselves AND their children. Should we make
it too difficult to become an American citizen we will weaken this
principle. Further, we need immigration to continue expanding our economy as
we always have since before we even became the USA.
And there is one more thing that we need to avoid the results of which if
instituted here would result in the situation that is being played out in
Europe today. Many countries in Europe have refused a sense of full
citizenship to its own immigrant population and this, in turn, has
"Balkanized" that immigrant population so much that they are now in riots
across Europe over their perceived alienation. They have not become vested
in the system under which they live and are agitating for further separation
yet. This is a death knell to a society and one we do not want rung in the
United States.
To aim a law that limits citizenship at illegal Mexicans whose children are
born in the USA can similarly serve to segregate those children from the
system here, leaving them on the outside looking in and growing to hate it
all. If we do this we may well be, several decades down the line, setting
ourselves up for the same thrashing that France is now taking from its
alienated immigrant population.
No, if we have a border problem we should address that problem head on and
not try to go around the back door and shut off citizenship for all time to
come for certain people over a problem we are having today.
Being considered a citizen of the US upon birth within its borders is a
concept that should remain sacrosanct. If we change that simple and
straightforward process we open the door for all manner of re-interpretation
at any given time. And that would undermine the very basis of being an
American.
The illegal immigration issue is important for us to deal with, and deal
with quickly. But changing citizenship requirements is not the way to do it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Warner Todd Huston
Mr. Huston has a keen interest in American history in general and political history in particular and writes for several websites and magazines on both topics.
Send Feedback To Warner Todd Huston
Site: http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
