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.
She's glad her younger son has U.S. citizenship.
"If he weren't a citizen, they'd take away Medicaid," she said.
Clearly you disagree with everybody else in the United States, including the Congressman who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court which decided on this question long ago. The "jurisdiction" clause was included to exclude American Indians who were not subject to the control of the federal government. They were not all made citizens until 1917.
Perhaps you would like to read what the Supreme Court wrote long ago.
The "jurisdiction" clause was included to exclude American Indians who were not subject to the control of the federal government.
Read the case.
Nope. But I might make it retroactive if the green card holder becomes a citizen...
That is not the case in which the Supreme Court decided that according to the 14th Amendment children born in the United States of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens.
I do not have time to do your research, so you will have to find it yourself.
Actually, it would be okay with me as my ancestor arrived in the New World in 1641 from Sweden!
It will not pose a problem. In fact, if it was in my State of Georgia, you may be royalty.
LOL That's a bit over the top.
Umm... I have problems with this statement. If the birthright privilege (?) was part of common law, the 14th. Amendment would have been redundant. I don't think that MARY LOU PICKEL and EUNICE MOSCOSO have read either with any comprehension.
Oh well, it's from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I may be expecting too much.
Can you PLEASE GET A GRIP and realize a heavy dose of SARCASM when you read it???
Did all of your ancestors arrive on the Mayflower? That sounds like a better date.
I am really surprised that so many Posters on Free Republic could possibly think that was serious suggestion. Here, let me add the sarcasm tag for you
/sarcasm
Is that better?
Justice Miller was a contemporary of those who drafted the Amendment and had immediate access to those who wrote it by which to interpret the law. Thus your claim of superior knowledge of its original intent is refuted by his.
Maybe you'll accept the Congressional Globe?
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will 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, but will include every other class of persons.
Nope, you both have to go, and by the end of the month.
Seriously, if you will continue reading this thread you will see it was Sarcasm.
I could never even imagine anyone would have taken it seriously, much less SO MANY people on FR.
Shucks!
half of me was looking forward to ordering you all out and the other half was wondering how it'd get there.
I am not going to read anything you wrote after this line nor will I respond to this ignorant, America bashing remark.
Funny you should say that because the first draft of MY SARCASTIC suggestion was, "Present in New Sweden in 1641."
That proves Congress has the right to define how jurisdiction will be interpreted and who qualifies under it, including children of illegals. That is btw exactly how the authors of the Amendment intended it to work.
That is right, I think only Mexicans and 10th generation European/Americans can make up the population of The United States. You have a problem with that?
Seriously, it was a joke, not intended to be taken seriously. If you will continue reading the thread you will see that.
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.