Skip to main content



Anchor Babies: Is Citizenship an Entitled Birthright?

"In 1994, Alma Meza Guitierrez travelled hundreds of miles with her three year old son through Mexico and across the U.S. border in order to reach her aunt and uncle's small apartment in San Diego. She lives in squalid conditions in the apartment's kitchen, she does not speak English and has little prospects for employment.

Why would a 20-year-old mother of one give up her life in Mexico to endure such circumstances? Alma is pregnant and she, like thousands of other women who enter the United States illegally each year, knows that giving birth in the U.S. means her child will be an "anchor baby" and granted U.S. citizenship. For Alma, that means her child will immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state and local benefit programs.
In addition, when Alma's child turns 21, he can sponsor the immigration of other members of the Guitierrez clan."

"Born In the USA" San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 20, 1994.

****************************
Anchor Babies and Interpreting the 14th Amendment

It is well known that a person born in the United States is an automatic citizen regardless of the mother's citizenship status. However, the United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S. style policy in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today. Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread fraud? The answer lies in how American jurisprudence has interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the post Civil War reforms aimed at addressing injustices to African Americans. It states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" and was crafted so that state governments could never deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, when the amendment was crafted, the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state explicitly, what they believed was understood. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.

"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.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
*********************************
The Price We Pay

The Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating an estimated 800,000 illegal alien school children in the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegals was $3.1 billion in 1993 (extrapolated to $4.6 billion in 1996 by FAIR), but this estimate does not at all take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.
It is estimated that the number of children born to illegal aliens each year is 165,000. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 birth per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (five million).

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.

What This All Means and What Can Be Done
Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not addressing this abuse, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Disrespect for the rule of law: By not closing this loophole, the federal government in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing illegal aliens to give birth to American citizens, in effect, makes citizenship a license for welfare. [Peter Brimelow. National Review, April 7, 1997.]

The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate...as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here[.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant.
Profs. Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, "Consensual Citizenship," Chronicles, July 1992.

Congressional action warranted: The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress's prerogative.

[FAIR supports legislation introduced into the current Congress to change the automatic conferral of citizenship to children of illegal aliens. See the Legislative Update page for H.R.7 by Rep Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and H.R.346 by Rep Bob Stump (R-AZ). An excellent description of the issue written by Rep. Bilbray was published by the San Diego Union-Tribune on August 17, 1997. Bilbray Op-Ed]

FAIR, 8/97.

*************************

Illegal immigration continued.....!

******************************

It is a Free County If You Are Not A Citizen!

*******************************

WHO USES MATRICULA CONSULAR CARDS?

By Michelle Malkin

October 20, 2004 11:54 PM

John and Ken of KFI radio in Los Angeles have posted an op-ed by Rep. David Drier on their web site in which Drier states, "It should also be recognized that Matricula Consular cards have been issued by the Mexican government since 1871, are not available to illegal immigrants, and are not accepted by any federal benefit program..."

As Lonewacko observes, this is complete nonsense. The fact is matricula consular cards are widely available to illegal immigrants. VDARE columnist Allan Wall explains,

No doubt that the Mexican consular card, which has existed for a couple of decades now, has some legitimate purpose. But nowadays its main function, as far as the Mexican government is concerned, is to prevent the deportation of Mexican illegal aliens from the U.S.
That, in fact, is exactly what the Siglo, a Mexican newspaper, has reported. An article dated November 5th, 2001, written by Monica Solis, the Siglo's correspondent in Los Angeles, California, couldn't be clearer.

Ms. Solis bemoans the plight of Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S. who are jailed for misdemeanors and then deported without due process:

"Thus various immigrants have wound up being deported because of a traffic violation when they don't have a driver's license or valid ID."

But not to worry, help is on the way! The article continues:

"The frequent deportation of Mexicans for lack of an ID card can become a thing of the past, with the approval of an initiative that proposes the acceptance of the matricula consular (issued by the Mexican government through its consulates in the entire country), as an official identification document for police authorities when they detain or intercept Mexicans."

So the Mexican government is distributing these consular cards, on American soil, with the specific purpose of preventing the deportation of Mexican illegal aliens.


**********************

MATRICULA CONSULAR CARDS continued.....
Last edited {1}
Original Post
-SCHOOL DETENTION
A 27-year-old undocumented immigrant lied and cheated "” to get an education
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Josue Ramirez-Mejia broke the law three years ago by entering the United States illegally. Once here, he found a day job, running a tiling business with his older brother. Then, a month ago, the Guatemalan embarked on a crime spree, forging his birth certificate, faking a high school transcript, even getting his sister to pose as his mother. He did all this to enroll as a student at Mitchell High School in Pasco County, Florida "” a plan that worked surprisingly well until last week, when the contents of his lost wallet showed Ramirez-Mejia was in truth almost 30 years old.

ADVERTISEMENT

If Ramirez-Mejia were suspected of being a predator, this story would be a chilling object lesson about children's safety. So far, however, the Mitchell principal has reassured parents that the Guatemalan was not a threat, and law enforcement and other sources seem to support him.

Pasco County's sheriff reported that the immigrant's record showed nothing but traffic tickets. The St. Petersburg Times, which broke the story, found public records linking the Guatemalan to two felony charges with an unclear outcome. Ramirez-Mejia's brother said the charges stemmed from false reports by the car's previous owner and had been dropped by the courts.

According to Ramirez-Mejia's broth-er, the Guatemalan immigrant is exactly what he seems: hard-working, devout and committed to high school for the simplest reason. He wants an education.

"America, everything is beautiful," Ramirez-Mejia's brother told the St. Petersburg Times in English. In Spanish, the brother added, "En Guatemala, la gente se muere." A translation: People are dying.

Neighbors described the whole Ramirez-Mejia family, in fact, as cheerful and devout. They attend La Luz Del Mundo church three times a week and, when not at work, play the accordion and sing. Josue, the brother told the newspaper, attended school during the day and worked at night. Their business, he explained, required knowledge of English. Ramirez-Mejia's plan involved graduating, working a few years in the United States and returning to Guatemala.

Instead, he now resides in Pasco County's jail, held on a $5,000 bond. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun deportation proceedings and will require another bail if he is released.

With its mix of law-breaking and work ethic, taxpayer resources and individual initiative, Ramirez-Mejia's story reflects the paradoxes of today's immigration puzzle. It's not amiss to react with frustration at leaders of countries such as Guatemala and Mexico "” not poor nations per se, but so poorly governed that citizens risk all to enter a country where tax-supported schools are easily accessible.

Mitchell High parents rightly feel alarmed at how easily an adult slipped into their children's school. Yet one can also respect the not-so-young Guatemalan's patience in trying to learn alongside children. One has to admire his grasp "” one so many native-born Americans lack "” that free education is a ticket to higher income and advancement.

It would have been intriguing to see if Ramirez-Mejia really would have fulfilled his plan to go home with the skills gained at taxpayers' expense. So many immigrants with the dream of a short stay here remain. Now that he faces deportation, it is even more provocative to wonder if the departure of this driven and enterprising worker also will be a loss for the country he leaves behind.
I won't try to address all the points you raise. The points are, howeve, sufficiently segmented for me to respond to this one which interests me.

It is well known that a person born in the United States is an automatic citizen regardless of the mother's citizenship status. However, the United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S. style policy in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today. Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread fraud? The answer lies in how American jurisprudence has interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the post Civil War reforms aimed at addressing injustices to African Americans. It states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" and was crafted so that state governments could never deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, when the amendment was crafted, the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state explicitly, what they believed was understood. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.

"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.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.---Michael

Citizenship is an interesting facet of African America's relationship with the United States. Clearly, it is also an issue of consequence for all Americans.

You realize, of course, that all those living at the time of the signing of the Constituion were 'Ipso facto' citizens of the United States. It was a 'grand act of sovereignty.'

'Poof, you're a citizen' with exceptions as noted for all the members of the Indian Nations.

I see no problem with the 'native-born' provision. The problem is with the failure to enforce the existing laws on illegal immigration, AND preventing illegal entry into the United States.

The nation does the same thing with the (illegal) drugs issue.

It is after-the-fact 'hand-wringing' over the consequences of not dealing with the causes of the problem to begin with.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.


The above argument was advanced to criticize a recent SCOTUS decision in which an American-born Saudi challenged the constitutionality of his detainment without benefit of counsel, without being charged with a crime, basically, in violation of the 5 Amendment. Unfortunately for the citers of this proposition, the SCOTUS viewed the construction, using the plain language, as it was written.

I'd advise caution in cherry-picking phrases and arguments advanced through other's research, especially if one chooses to ignore the researcher/writer's obvious agenda. [As a rule, I would avoid pulling arguments advanced on white supremacist sites to advance arguments on Black sites. nono]

It is true, Howard made the above comment; but it was done during the 1866 Senate ratification debate of the Citizenship Clause. He was stating his opinion regarding the drafter's intent. However, the Copnstitution does not grant Congress to interpret the law. That duty is reserved to the SCOTUS. Thus, Howard's comments carry no more weight than any other citizen's Op-Ed piece in the local newspaper or that of a street-corner interview of a court observer.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
Lofton...do you have a problem with white illegals that come here through Canada?


But I hope you understand that for Stormfront, VDare, and many of the other sites you link to, it's not about legal immigration vs. illegal immigration; it's about the color of the immigrant. Does that color your view of their arguments." by Kweli4Real

Illegal is illegal no matter who the individuals are. Just so happens the largest group of illegal immigrants enter the U.S. from the Mexico California/Arizona border.


The usual individuals making a race card issue being Kweli4Real, Kevin41, and ricardomath.

.....again it of little or no relevency as to the source, illegal means illegal no matter who the individuals are. As usual the only individuals making a racial issue out of this are Kweli4Real, Kevin41, and ricardomath.

....again, once any valid information is published, information that is also easy to access, easy to acquire, the information can be used again and again by any individual, or group of individuals, be it a Michael Lofton, a Storm Front, Michelle Malkin, the Baltimore Sun, the Los Angeles Sentinel, the Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, Protest Warrior, AfricanAmerica.org, etc., etc., etc.

In essence the the freedom of expression shall not be abridged. First Amendment U.S. Constitutional Protections allow this, and a Kevin41, a ricardomath, an MBM, the LA Times, Protest Warrior, Storm Front, the Bush Administration, President George Bush himself, have little authority or power to stop it!


Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:

.....again it of little or no relevency as to the source, illegal means illegal no matter who the individuals are. As usual the only individuals making a racial issue out of this are Kweli4Real, Kevin41, and ricardomath.


So, you don't consider quoting from and linking to white supremicist websites to support your views as making a racial issue out of it?

bs bang
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
I say let em all in...this country was stolen and full of theives anyway......


...now again, the door is wide to anyone who chooses to relocate to Mexico, the Sudan, Haiti, Uganda, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, , Libya, Iraq, Cuba, etc., etc.

......Heck, even the illegal immigrants prefer living in the U.S. than........should I say it.......

************************

THE NATION
More Cubans Striking Out Across the Sea

The Coast Guard notes a big increase in the number of people trying make land in the U.S. Patrols are stepped up to stem the tide.

By John-Thor Dahlburg, Times Staff Writer

October 9, 2005

MIAMI "” As a hurricane spun in the Gulf of Mexico, about to strike Texas and Louisiana, a different sort of maritime drama was unfolding off Florida's southeastern coast "” the desperate attempt of 10 Cuban men, riding a homemade boat shaped like a coffin, to reach U.S. shores.

As local TV stations beamed live images throughout South Florida, the men were stopped by the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security about a mile east of Haulover Beach, north of Miami Beach.

Six were released in Cuba, and the rest were transferred to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay for interviews with U.S. immigration officials, Petty Officer Ryan Doss, a Coast Guard spokesman, said Tuesday.

The dramatic television pictures "” at one point, the Cubans' boat was bumped, spilling four men into the water "” highlighted a development that largely has been occurring much farther offshore, out of the public eye: The number of Cubans trying to reach the United States via the perilous journey across the Florida Straits has reached its highest level in more than a decade.

The Coast Guard says it intercepted 1,499 Cubans before they could reach U.S. shores last year. Already this year, it has halted 2,251 Cubans at sea.

During the fiscal year that ended Friday, the Coast Guard intercepted 2,712 Cubans, or more than double the 1,225 stopped in fiscal year 2004.

"Definitely the numbers are up. One would think there are also more getting through," said Luis Diaz, another Coast Guard spokesman.

One key factor in the increased interceptions, Diaz said, is that the Coast Guard and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, have become more vigilant in monitoring the stretch of water between the United States and Cuba.

In July, the Coast Guard announced that it was shifting two additional patrol boats to the Florida Keys and increasing both sea and aerial surveillance.

Planes and helicopters from the federal Customs and Border Protection service were also ordered to help, and the Florida Highway Patrol was enlisted as well to check boats being towed south on Florida's roads to see if they belonged to potential smugglers.

Diaz said the increased efforts, which had to be temporarily modified so the Coast Guard could rescue victims of Hurricane Katrina, have paid off.

"The reality is that we're stopping more," he said.

At-sea interdictions now total more than in any single year since 1994, when more than 37,000 Cubans, many using inner tubes or flimsy rafts, braved the hazards of an ocean voyage to reach the United States.

Since then, U.S. immigration policy has been changed to distinguish between Cubans detained on the water "” who usually get sent back "” and those who manage to set foot in the United States. They usually are allowed to stay.

That helps explain why on Sept. 23, as Hurricane Rita neared Texas and Louisiana, the men in the homemade boat were so eager to reach southeastern Florida.

On Tuesday, the Coast Guard said one of its cutters repatriated 54 Cubans caught trying to enter the United States illegally. The week before, 107 would-be migrants who used rafts, rickety watercraft and speedboats in their abortive bids to reach the United States were sent back to Cuba, according to the Coast Guard.

Diaz said Cuban families in the United States might pay $8,000 to $15,000 to the operator of a fast vessel to bring a relative over from Cuba. Such voyages sometimes turn deadly. In August, a 28-foot boat believed to be operated by smugglers capsized north of Matanzas, Cuba. Three survivors were fished from the water by a passing freighter, and they reported that there had been 31 other Cubans aboard. No trace of anyone else was found.

In another suspected smuggling incident, the Coast Guard cutter Metompkin was dispatched Sept. 17 to waters 40 miles southwest of Key West after a Customs and Border Protection plane spotted a speedboat on fire. As the cutter approached, two people jumped into the water, Diaz said. Only one, burned on his arms and torso, could be rescued.

"People here are paying thousands to get their loved ones killed. Even smugglers are getting killed," Diaz said.

But not just enforcement efforts have intensified; the numbers of people seeking to flee Fidel Castro's Cuba have also been rising.

"More Cubans are leaving; more Cubans are being intercepted," said Damian Fernandez, a political scientist and director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University.

The reasons, he said, are the dreary realities of life on the Communist-ruled island, as well as the possible intent of the Castro regime to irk the Bush administration by opening the emigration tap.

On a single Tuesday this fall, three separate groups of Cubans landed in the Florida Keys. One group of seven men, three women and a child motored ashore at a private resort on Little Torch Key, dirty and weary after a 33-hour voyage in a homemade diesel-powered boat.

In July, in a bold operation that Coast Guard officials admitted caught them by surprise, 19 Cubans were put ashore on posh Sanibel Island on Florida's southwestern coast, well north of the usual drop-off areas, including the Keys and Dry Tortugas, that are closer to Cuba. U.S. officials say an increasing number of Cubans have sailed for Mexico and Honduras, from which they then hope to journey overland to the United States.

"Of late, all the economic reforms have been stalled, if not backtracked," Fernandez said. "There's no electricity; the fans don't work; you can't cook."

But along with the frequent power blackouts, he said the warm weather of summer and early autumn also brings calmer ocean conditions for anyone thinking of making the 90-mile crossing to the U.S.

Cuba and the United States have traded accusations of exploiting the migration issue for political ends.

Before leaving his post as the top American diplomat in Havana, James C. Cason, chief of mission of the U.S. Interests Section, issued a statement denying "purported U.S. designs to precipitate a mass migration crisis" and accusing the Castro government of flouting a 10-year-old bilateral agreement on Cuban migration.

"Cubans who don't have a choice to leave legally are risking their lives, in the greatest numbers we have seen since 1994, on dangerously inadequate watercraft," Cason said.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

**************************

....and for those U.S. citizens who condemn life in the U.S., or the U.S. experience,..........

.......untold numbers of immigrants from all over the world would gladly take your place. These individuals will take life threatening chances, risks, etc., etc., with the hope of reaching the U.S.

Attachments

Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:

First Amendment U.S. Constitutional Protections allow this, and a Kevin41, a ricardomath, an MBM, the LA Times, Protest Warrior, Storm Front, the Bush Administration, President George Bush himself, have little authority or power to stop it!


Uh...the first amendment doesn't apply here, Lofton. And inded, one of the people on that list of yours certainly does have the power and authority to boot your azz.

bs
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:

First Amendment U.S. Constitutional Protections allow this, and a Kevin41, a ricardomath, an MBM, the LA Times, Protest Warrior, Storm Front, the Bush Administration, President George Bush himself, have little authority or power to stop it!


Uh...the first amendment doesn't apply here, Lofton. And indeed, one of the people on that list of yours certainly does have the power and authority to boot your azz.

bs



...wrong again, indeed it applies, and be it here, there, or everywhere, the message will still travel, be it by me, or someone else.

MBM can ban me, but the message, the material will still travel. Heck, I'm not a member of StormFront, Protest Warrior, or otherwise, and I posted the information from Protest Warrior here, meaning anyone can do it, be it circulating and/or posting, with or without membership to any message board, private organization, sorority, outhouse, gang, etc., etc., etc.

Heck, by far, the WWW covers the planet, so a few misguided thoughts from ricardomath are nonsense. Remember I'm a U.S. citizen and not an illegal immigrant. This being said your authority over me, is meanless, the null set, etc., etc.


...Sure feels good having so much freedom, the freedom to exercise Constitutional Rights of all sorts, as it relates to the power and glory of being a U.S. citizen.........

....As long as I have life in the U.S., heck I'll be damned if Michael Lofton will ever take the low road, or back seat in favor of any illegal immigrant, and/or any illegal immigrant supporter.


Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×