Posted on 09/29/2005 12:16:11 AM PDT by Hushpuppie
Silvia Moreno snuck across the U.S. border from Mexico and made it to Atlanta to join her husband last year.
When she gave birth this year, she named her daughter Scarlett, after Scarlett O'Hara.
Moreno, 26, had watched "Gone With the Wind" and was inspired by the Atlanta heroine.
"She worked so hard. She overcame adversity to survive," said Moreno, who wants her daughter to develop the same strength.
Scarlett Alvarado Moreno, 6 months, is a U.S. citizen because she was born here; her mother, father, and 4-year-old brother are illegal immigrants.
Millions of families like Scarlett's will be the focus of a hearing today before a U.S. House subcommittee in Washington to discuss birthright citizenship, dual citizenship and its effect on national sovereignty.
As President Bush opens the debate on a temporary worker program that could allow immigrant laborers to come into the United States, the issue of what happens to their children has come to the forefront.
Although revoking the birthright guarantee is not likely to be part of Congress' immigration reform agenda this fall, there are increasing signs lawmakers are thinking about altering a privilege grounded in common law and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The proposals come in a post-9/11 time of increasing suspicion toward illegal immigrants. Several bills have been introduced.
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) wants to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment that also would limit birthright citizenship. Such an amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
'Anchor babies'
A proposal by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who heads a 90-member caucus pushing to tighten immigration laws, would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of temporary immigrant workers.
Tancredo said the provision is vital because temporary workers would not want to leave after their visas expire if their children are U.S. citizens, or so-called anchor babies.
Moreno, of Atlanta, thinks it's unjust to deny citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents, although illegal, work hard.
"People work so much, and they give their youth to this country," Moreno said.
Moreno wanted Scarlett to be an American because with the blue American passport, "the doors of the world are open to her," she said.
Mexicans have a harder time getting tourist visas to see the world, she said.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies to reduce illegal immigration, said the lure of U.S. citizenship for children is a "huge incentive" for people to come to the United States illegally because it opens the door to many social benefits.
Also, once they reach 21, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can petition for their parents' residency. Family reunification often is cited as a reason for amnesty proposals.
There were 6.3 million illegal immigrant families in the United States in 2004, according to a study released in June by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most of them — 59 percent — do not have children, the study said.
But nearly one-third of families headed by illegal immigrants do have children who are U.S. citizens, the study said.
Immigrant advocates and Hispanic groups say finding work is the major motivation for illegal immigration.
"The only thing that this kind of change gets you ... is stateless people, which doesn't solve any problem," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.
"This is not a matter of immigration policy, this is a matter of changing who we are fundamentally as a nation," she said.
The United States grants citizenship to every child born in the United States with the exception of children of occupying forces and foreign diplomats, who keep the citizenship of their home country, said Peter J. Spiro, an international law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who is testifying at today's hearing.
Spiro said that proposals to change the birthright citizenship have been around since the mid-1990s, but several court decisions have upheld the citizenship.
"It's part now of our entrenched constitutional tradition that all children born in the territory of the United States are deemed citizens at birth," he said.
Ides Mercado, 19, who said she came from Honduras five years ago on a visa, warned of consequences if the birthright provision is revoked.
"There will be a lot of illegals here if they don't let the children be citizens," she said as she pushed a stroller with her 7-month-old daughter through Plaza Fiesta on Buford Highway in DeKalb County.
Daisy Montoya Becerra, 24, of Atlanta has one son born here, one son born in Mexico and another child on the way.
She's glad her younger son has U.S. citizenship.
"If he weren't a citizen, they'd take away Medicaid," she said.
She's also happy her younger son will be able to cross the border freely instead of having to slip across with a smuggler.
"With papers, he can come and go easily," she said.
You are so right...the very reality of the Founding Fathers and nearly everyone prior to 1900 or thereabouts never imagined airplanes (much less used as flying buses as they are today by the general public), giant ships with huge carrying capacity, people crossing the Gulf on rafts, flooding by scurilous method across from Mexico beyond the straggling bank robber running from the law...
There are many sincere concepts in our Constitution that do not take into consideration today's "poverty of common sense" in many areas of contemporary behaviors.
I'd be willing to bet money on the fact that if and when any of those responsible for the 14th Amendment could be accessed today, they'd identify the current massive influx of illegal aliens as representing a foreign, invading force or something very close. They certainly would not be cheering it on. Nor looking to rationalize the damages done and dangers inherent to the problem. They'd be resorting to firm and immediate legislation to stop the problem in it's tracks.
Most of us are already taking that "test" for citizenship and it's identified by a person's observance to and about our laws. Break enough of them, lose certain rights inherent to citizenship.
Well, you're wrong about that racist statement too, alleging the issue of illegal immigration wouldn't be (so) objectionable, of concern if to our south was Ireland (and the Irish) rather than Mexico and Mexicans.
IF Ireland was to our south, they'd not be so awfully violating the laws of the north, for starters. For secondary response here, I don't get any special charm to or about Mexicans/southern border peoples such that they get to be indulged in their various emotional and socio-political manipulations of our laws (something most Irish wouldn't be doing, either).
Knowing the Irish, me thinks they'd be down there changing their country/ies rather than expecting other nations to arrive and save them or otherwise provide free room and board if/when they left thier places and arrived elsewhere.
Your comments don't advance this issue beyond you airing out your racist preferences for indulging "brown skinned" people to the expense of everyone else. And that's MY point.
LOL. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The correct solution to the issue of "anchor babies" is to "cut the anchor chain". In most jurisdictions, parents can lose their parental rights in cases of child neglect or endangerment (or for less sometimes). The crimes that qualify for revocation of parental rights should be expanded to include having a baby while in the country illegally.
Take the citizen babies away from the illegal parents, adopt them out, and then deport the parents, and the issue of "anchor babies" will disappear. Guaranteed.
Well, no, you wrote that you favored/had preference for "brown skinned" people...which I can tell ya', Ireland is not, at least not the majority who were born there, as were their ancestors.
But, at least we agree that were the Irish our southern neighbors, they'd be down there organizing and taking care of their problems, have a bit more pride about whose laws they disregarded and why. Than our current "neighbors" although I really lately hesitate to use that word for Mexico and most of Central/South America. I think it's a case of too many revolutionaries south of us who can't seem to control themselves beyond destructive acts. Why they won't limit their revolutions to their own countries is the issue here.
I am not at all temperate today about this issue, given the many millions of mostly Hispanic illegals in the country and no end in sight, and so few in our elected office who will contend realistically with this problem.
Yes, having read the thread by now, I agree with you (not that I didn't originally).
However, because the 14th Amendment has been so abused if not intellectually bludgeoned to enable all sorts of violations of the intent of the Amendment (AND the Constitution), it's now necessary to hold Hearings and propose additional legislation to even uphold the 14th!
The Constitution is often as clear as a bell and yet it's necessary to argue out intent and content because of so many abuses and manipulations of the terms. We should be enforcing the laws we have, problems solved.
But, we aren't, as a nation and thus, these problems in even discussing the violations. What's wrong with Congress, I just don't know.
We don't agree on that.
The principle you're talking about says this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Being born on our soil and receiving automatic citizenship reinforces the concept that Americans believe that these rights are endowed by our creator and not the gift off the State. If we are to equate American citizenship with freedom and liberty, then we must accept that in principle anyone born within our borders is also endowed with those Rights.
I don't believe that yanking automatic citizenship is going to significantly alter our immigration problems. You have to keep them from getting in. Take away our social benefits and they'll still come. They are drawn here because of the economic opportunity available in this country, and the promise of America - which is liberty and freedom.
I wish everybody in the world could live under similar auspices, in their own countries. If Freedom is God's gift to man, then we should endeavor to continue to recognize that gift and grant our protection to it to those who are born in our country, even if their parents are illegal.
When it comes to legitimizing the parents of a child who was born in our country, the process can be debated, but we should never look at the child and say that it is not one of ours.
Disagree, it's in the Constitution and its a right. However, we should simply change whatever dumb ass law allows their parents to stay because of it. "Sorry, you have to go and since your child has no sponsor here, it's gotta go too."
Yeah, but the Constitution isn't self contradicting in content or intent.
You can't abstract one principle of the Constitution and then apply it cookie-cutter to wherever else you intend manipulation of intent and content, such as attempt to use some non-national specific idealism to define quite specific terms as what and who constitutes citizenship as described, defined by the 14th Amendment.
That introductory idealism is great and noble and I do agree with it but the Constitution then carries forward with far more specific terminology to and about how that idealism is to be realistically applied. And in and by the 14th Amendment, it defines citizenship.
And it does not state the citizenship is applied to anyone by some other means other than birth BUT EXCLUDING certain births...those are parallel in birth by Divine inspiration but as to who among them becomes a citizen, the 14th Amendment specifies.
No, I don't agree with your allegation that being born on American soil "reinforces the concept that Americans believe that these rights are endowed by our creator" BECAUSE:
(1.) the Creator/God does not inherently endow only those born on American soil with special qualities or aspects;
(2.) birthright isn't consistent to and with all born on American soil (refer to the 14th Amendment and other areas of our Constitution); and,
(3.) not all Americans believe your allegation and therefore are not "reinforced" by your "concept".
The introductory quote you quote is in respect to citizenship, and that it is special, that it matters and is a precious thing about which and upon which the country is founded. Illegal aliens are not displaying an interest in citizenship by breaking immigration laws and the many other violations they commit to remain in the country illegally. And, many are not interested in citizenship, given their illegal presence or otherwise.
Illegal aliens giving birth here TO MANIPULATE THE INTENT of our Constitution represents -- to my view as a citizen, who was born here -- represents the ultimate insult to our Constitution and fulfills the negations to citizenship described in the 14th Amendment.
Yeah, but the Constitution isn't self contradicting in content or intent.
You can't abstract one principle of the Constitution and then apply it cookie-cutter to wherever else you intend manipulation of intent and content, such as attempt to use some non-national specific idealism to define quite specific terms as what and who constitutes citizenship as described, defined by the 14th Amendment.
That introductory idealism is great and noble and I do agree with it but the Constitution then carries forward with far more specific terminology to and about how that idealism is to be realistically applied. And in and by the 14th Amendment, it defines citizenship.
And it does not state the citizenship is applied to anyone by some other means other than birth BUT EXCLUDING certain births...those are parallel in birth by Divine inspiration but as to who among them becomes a citizen, the 14th Amendment specifies.
No, I don't agree with your allegation that being born on American soil "reinforces the concept that Americans believe that these rights are endowed by our creator" BECAUSE:
(1.) the Creator/God does not inherently endow only those born on American soil with special qualities or aspects;
(2.) birthright isn't consistent to and with all born on American soil (refer to the 14th Amendment and other areas of our Constitution); and,
(3.) not all Americans believe your allegation and therefore are not "reinforced" by your "concept".
The introductory quote you quote is in respect to citizenship, and that it is special, that it matters and is a precious thing about which and upon which the country is founded. Illegal aliens are not displaying an interest in citizenship by breaking immigration laws and the many other violations they commit to remain in the country illegally. And, many are not interested in citizenship, given their illegal presence or otherwise.
Illegal aliens giving birth here TO MANIPULATE THE INTENT of our Constitution represents -- to my view as a citizen, who was born here -- represents the ultimate insult to our Constitution and fulfills the negations to citizenship described in the 14th Amendment.
Well, MY statements aren't based in racism, or are about racist selection processes.
This was already changed by statute, about 10 years ago. A child born here to an illegal alien is a U.S. citizen, but cannot petition for his or her parents to stay here until the child is 18. The net effect is that, unless the child is put up for adoption, the parents have to take the child with them when they are deported.
That law already was changed, about 10 years ago.
Yanking citizenship for those born on American soil does not advance the ideals our nation was founded upon.
The problem is not the children born to illegals on our soil, but the fact that illegals are getting into our country in the first place. Solve the latter problem and you solve the other problem, without having to do anything drastic.
And the automatic granting of citizenship to any born on our soil does represent our belief that such Rights embodied by our citizenship are endowed by God, and by recognizing these divine endowments through the granting of citizenship, we reinforce that idea within our society.
But I again repeat that the solution you seek won't be found in a repealing of the 14th amendment. Border enforcement is the only solution. Hysterical or rational attempts to repeal the amendment or subvert its spirit are things that I will oppose.
The 14th amendment is one of those things that makes America, America. An immigrant family, in one generation, can go from being one nationality, to becoming 100% American, and have other Americans stand up for them.
well then it seems DC is suffering from lackoftesticlesitis in enforcing the damn law.
"When" they are deported? Shouldn't that be "if, by some small miracle, law enforcement actually does its job and they are deported.
And therein lies the problem.
I would like to know how it is that Silvia Moreno, a publically admitted illegal, is still in the country and not being detained pending her deportation hearing. Why aren't the people we pay our hard earned tax dollars to enforce immigration laws doing their jobs?
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.