Posted on 05/29/2006 1:20:01 AM PDT by neverdem
America should reconsider its habit of granting citizenship to any baby born here.
In 1970, 6 percent of all births in the United States were to illegal aliens. In 2002, that figure was 23 percent. In 1994, 36 percent of the births paid for by Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid, were to illegals. Any child born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. He or she is instantly eligible for panoply of social services, food stamps and other forms of aid. When the child reaches the age of 21, he can petition to have his parents and siblings declared permanent residents.
The so-called "anchor baby" phenomenon is a hidden trap door beneath any guest worker program, because a significant number of guest workers will have babies while in the United States and will thus elude any effort to send them home. (There are other problems with guest worker schemes: the difficulty of enforcement, the creation of permanently alienated subgroups such as Europe has created of its Muslim immigrants, and the problem of uprooting even the noncitizen children of guest workers who've spent years in the United States.)
I happen to be a moderate on immigration. I believe that Republicans should tread carefully on reform lest they be perceived as anti-Hispanic. With the country divided so evenly between the two parties, Republicans cannot afford to alienate 12 percent of the electorate (and a group religiously and culturally open to the GOP message). While anecdotal evidence suggests that the conservative grass roots are deeply agitated about immigration, their concerns must be addressed with finesse so as not to walk the party into a political buzz saw. Here are some reforms that go beyond what Congress is considering:
Eliminate the "anchor baby" problem by changing the citizenship law.
Most Americans take it for granted that the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship, but a number of scholars deem this to be a misinterpretation. The clause reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens.
If the drafters intended to say only that all persons born on U.S. territory would be considered citizens, why did they add "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Are those words superfluous? If not, what do they mean?
In 1898, the same Supreme Court that decided Plessy vs. Ferguson interpreted the clause to exclude only the children of diplomats. But this contradicts the statements of one of the amendment's key authors, Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who explained in 1866 that the citizenship clause, intended to ensure the rights of former slaves, "would not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."
The United States is one of the only developed nations to permit birthright citizenship. Britain changed its law in 1981.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Prof. John Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law acknowledged that Congress is often chary of directly challenging the courts on constitutional matters out of fear of provoking a deadlock between coequal branches. But the courts, Eastman urged, have declared Congress' power over naturalization matters to be "plenary."
It is past time to reconsider the birthright citizenship rule. It is simply too tempting a lure to poor pregnant women south of the border, and it will always undercut other immigration reforms.
Back to the melting pot.
The United States absorbed proportionately more immigrants a century ago than it is trying to digest now. But our grandparents had one huge advantage: They believed in "Americanization." Immigrants were thrown into the cauldron we called the melting pot and emerged with slightly altered names, lost accents, a love of baseball and calling George Washington the father of their country.
They lost something but gained infinitely more. Years of multicultural claptrap, bilingual education, political correctness and interest group politics have dulled our capacity to assimilate. And our lack of national self-confidence has in turn filtered down to the immigrants themselves, who see nothing odd about marching in the streets for their "rights" instead of asking politely for our indulgence.
If we cannot recapture the will to insist upon Americanization, immigration will be our undoing instead of what it has always been, a great strength.
Mona Charen's column is distributed by Creators Syndicate.
Immigration was a great strength because we demanded high standards of those admitted for citizenship. That concept was tossed out with the Hart-Celler bill in 1965. We need to return to high standards so that immigration once again is a source of strength instead of an invitation to live on the largess of the taxpayers. The requirement to arrive with an employable skill, a determination to employ that skill as a productive worker and to assimilate into our culture as an English speaking person schooled in our history is critical to recapturing what was lost in 1965.
You have to give them a reason to run home. I still like the hunting season.
Let's roll with good ideas.
B.S.
I believe that Republicans should tread carefully on reform lest they be perceived as anti-Hispanic.
How about; I believe that should Republicans tread too carefully on illegal immigration they will be perceived as anti-American.
....but gas is over 3 bucks a gallon.....
The media wants everyone to believe that it just right-wing conservatives who are upset with illegal immigration. That's what they're pushing. However, in reality it cuts across ideological lines.
This article has the right idea but the wrong method. We should repeal the 14th Amendment not "re-interpret" it. "Re-interpreting" the Constitution is what the Libs do when they don't like the meaning of the document. And that has brought us abortion on demand and prohibitions on displaying the 10 Commandments. We should not fall into this trap. Repeal the 14th Amendement. That is the answer.
Whitaker Chambers was right when he said that when he finally made up his mind to leave the communist party and and to fight communism that he was leaving the winning side and going to the losers .
The communists in this country have been very methodical ,dedicated and I am sorry to say from what I see in this country right now ,sucessful .Whitaker was right
This is a horrid idea.
I am afraid I have to agree with you.
What's a horrid idea? Getting rid of anchor babies? That's an idea whose time has come. Unless you want a demographic revolution. If so, we may as well say it was good while it lasted, but it's over. Forget about borders. Let the whole world come! /s
Germany has been this to the turks, for decades, and it sure has worked for them. /s
"B.S."
Let me know how you think La Raza and their pals in the lame stream media will play it.
It's an immoral arrangement, no matter who does it. Who wants to copy the krauts?
Can, will and do, play it as "anti-hispanic". Just as any opposition from conservatives is played when opposing expansion of "entitlement" programs are anti-black, anti-poor.
Republicans are the party of meanies. Same old s***, different day.
One of my very least favorite ethnopoliticians in the world, Fabian Nunez, is an anchor baby. He is an excellent example of the self-amplifying nature of the phenomenon. Anchor babies increase the rate at which more anchor babies arrive.
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.