Archive | birthright citizenship RSS for this section

Immigration think tank sees birthright citizenship as threat to U.S. security

A new Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report examined the consequences of America’s liberal birthright (anchor baby) policy and found that the program may have national security implications.

The study Entitled “’Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National Security Problem in the Making?,’ provides original estimates on the number of annual births to temporary visitors, whether birth tourists, students, guest workers, or Mexican citizens with border-crossing privileges. The report suggests that this policy is a national security vulnerability and discusses how U.S.-born, but raised-abroad terrorists can (and have) used their citizenship against us.”

The Center for Immigration Studies key findings included;

* Nearly 200,000 children are estimated to have been born to women lawfully admitted as temporary visitors from all over the world in 2009. By comparison, according to other studies, more than 300,000 children are born each year to illegal aliens.
* Short-term visitors, including women who come as birth tourists expressly for the purpose of having a U.S.-citizen child, account for about 20 percent of these births (39,000). While most foreign tourists stay for two weeks or less, according to DHS statistics a large number of people who are admitted as tourists stay for periods of three months or more, including an estimated 780,000 women of child-bearing age.
* Another 20,000 annual births are estimated to young foreign women who are admitted as short-term residents, such as students, guest workers, exchange visitors, investors, and other categories that allow for multiple years of U.S. residence.
* The cohort that accounts for the largest number of births to foreign visitors is Mexican women who hold Border Crossing Cards (BCCs). An estimated 130,000 births are estimated from this group of women, who have virtually unrestricted access to U.S. cities and towns in the southwest border region. Because the identities of BCC holders are not checked upon entry and the exits are not tracked, the cards frequently are used fraudulently by imposters seeking illegal entry.

The report also concluded that these birth tourist children have become some of America’s biggest adversaries.

The high-profile children include Anwar al Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who is now residing in Yemen and directing home-grown terrorist attacks against America; and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-born enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan and released from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2004.

CIS points out the common denominator with Al Awlaki and Hamdi is the fact they were both born in the United States to parents admitted as temporary residents on non-immigrant visas.

These two men, however, were raised and radicalized in the Middle East.

The birthright or anchor baby issue should weigh heavily on lawmakers who are trying to reform America’s immigration laws- failure to do so will only result in more home-grown terror attacks.

For more stories;

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Continue reading on Immigration think tank sees birthright citizenship as threat to U.S. security – San Diego County Political Buzz |

State Lawmakers Announce new laws to end birthright citizenship and anchor babies

State lawmakers, led by Daryl Metcalfe of Pennsylvania, held a press conference in Washington, DC Wednesday to unveil their new nationwide legislative campaign to correct the misapplication to the 14th Amendment and end automatic birthright citizenship (BRC) in the U.S. to babies born of illegal aliens, so-called ‘anchor babies.’

America is just one of just a handful of countries that still bestows automatic citizenship for babies being born within the nation’s boundaries.

“According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography,” explained Metcalfe. “The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross (illegally into U.S.) and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.”

According to State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI), hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are unlawfully crossing U.S. borders to give birth and exploit their child as “anchor babies,” as a means to obtain residency, access taxpayer-funded benefits and acquire American jobs.

“I’ve long considered birthright citizenship to be the holy grail of the illegal immigration debate,” said Oklahoma State Rep. Randy Terrill also a member of SLLI. “It has created a perverse incentive for foreign nationals to break U.S. law and proven to be a policy disaster for our Republic.”

Currently the 14th Amendment reads; “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.”

While the single sentence may seem straight forward to some, SLLI sets out to crystallize the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of” and ensure it is followed with the founder’s intentions.

The state legislators say much confusion has surrounded the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional ramifications have resulted in the anchor baby status. However, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has now provided expert legal research and analysis to ensure the plain English- straightforward legislative solution will meet any Constitutional challenges brought against it once enacted by state Legislatures across the nation.

“Today we are here in Washington D.C. to serve Congress with notice that both the U.S. Constitution and the federal government were created by the states,” said Metcalfe. “Just like any other national policy, America’s immigration laws must protect the lives, liberty and property of American citizens, rather than foreign invaders.”

The new coalition includes lawmakers from 40 state legislatures- all working to solve the nation’s illegal immigration crisis.

One of the well-known members of SLLI is Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce (R-AZ).

Pearce, often a lightning rod in the battle against illegal immigration (he co-authored Arizona’s SB1070), was unable to attend the D.C. press conference but released a brief statement on the subject. “The law is clear, the history is clear, the 14th Amendment is clear; natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The new Republican leadership in the House does plan to address the birthright citizenship problem, but only after taking up legislation dealing with workplace enforcement, including requiring the use of the E-Verify program, and ensuring jobs go to American citizens instead of illegal aliens.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) told Fox News Tuesday that voters elected the new Congress to focus on the economy and jobs for American workers and that will be their first order of business.

But for many border security activists, ending birthright citizenship this year is one of their highest priorities along with border security and interior enforcement of immigration laws. According to Jeff Schwilk, spokesman for the SoCal Patriot Coalition, ending BRC is a priority because it is a backdoor amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, mostly Mexican citizens who use anchor babies to establish a foothold in the U.S.

“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never meant to bestow automatic U.S. citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors,” said Schwilk. “The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect newly freed African-American slaves, not criminals and invaders from foreign countries.”

The United States and Canada are the last remaining developed nations in the world that still give automatic citizenship to babies born of illegal aliens and foreign citizens. All other first-world countries have stopped BRC abuse in their countries. Ireland, France, Australia, and New Zealand have all repealed BRC in the past 20 years.

Schwilk points out that anchor babies are really welfare babies, allowing illegal alien parents to apply for and receive welfare, healthcare, and other U.S. social benefits that can amount to thousands of dollars in ‘free’ money each month per anchor baby for the illegal alien parents.

All these benefits are paid for by U.S. taxpayers and it amounts to tens of billions of dollars per year nationally. Not surprisingly some anti-anchor baby advocates call them “jackpot babies” for poor illegal aliens looking for a way out of poverty.

To make matters worse, Mexico, China, and other countries are abusing the U.S. anchor baby loophole as well by encouraging their female citizens to give birth in the America.

“Birth Tourism” has become a billion-dollar industry due to America’s lax immigration and citizenship laws. More than a half a million anchor babies are now born in the U.S. each year, creating instant U.S. citizens status for the foreign parents who have foreign loyalties and connections.

Few citizens dispute the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed by Congress and/or the Supreme Court to clarify BRC once and for all, but legislation doesn’t appear to be Congress’ priority for the early part of 2011.

Most Americans believe it is time to end the widespread BRC abuse and adopt a common sense solution that would state that babies born of foreign parents are citizens of the country their parents came from. The new state legislation would do just that and provide a non-citizen birth certificate to all foreign babies born in the U.S. by illegal residents.

After the birth of their child, parents can take that certificate to their nearest consulate or Embassy to receive a formal birth certificate from their country for their child.

Problem solved and no one is harmed, says Schwilk.

Another factor that makes the case for ending BRC is Mexico grants automatic Mexican citizenship to all babies born in the U.S. or anywhere outside Mexico. These babies already have automatic citizenship at birth, Mexican citizenship, and many people contend America should not give out free U.S. citizenship.

“By giving automatic citizenship to millions of Mexican citizen babies at birth, the U.S. Government has, perhaps unwittingly, created millions of new dual citizens who have strong loyalties to Mexico, especially when they grow up with Mexican parents and families in the U.S.,” Schwilk added.

Not surprising the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has a much different opinion on the birthright citizenship issue.

“These thoughtless and unnecessary proposals take our country in the wrong direction, away from inclusion and our other core American values,” stated Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The citizenship clause is a bedrock principle of civil rights and part of what makes us all Americans. Never in our nation’s history have we amended the Constitution to take away someone’s rights and we should not do so now.”

While advocates consider the solution is quite simple and can be defined directly by Congress and doesn’t require a change in the Constitution, La Raza (The Race in Spanish) shares a much different opinion.

“Proponents of this idea would have you believe that their proposals are simple, uncomplicated, and an easy fix to a problem. But there is nothing simple about taking away a right that millions of Americans fought and died for in the Civil War. There is nothing uncomplicated about an assault on our Constitution. And this is no solution,” concluded Murguía.

The debate on birthright citizenship is certain to bring forth a fiery national conversation, one that will challenge the country’s broken illegal immigration system and lead to much-needed state or federal legislation.

For more stories;

More arguments for stopping birthright citizenship by Numbers USA can be found here: Birthright citizenship

© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Anchor baby issue solved – a Congressional definition of the word- BORN

With the immigration issue swirling about the country, Arizona being slapped with lawsuits and Mexico drug cartel violence exploding south of the border; many are beginning to have adult conversations about the impact of illegal immigration within U.S. borders.

Every year there are approximately 300,000 to 400,000 children born in America to illegal immigrants parents. As such, the children automatically get the golden ticket – citizenship and all the benefits that come with being an American. Of course babies cannot take care of themselves so their parents must now gain some sort of legal status to care for their infant child.

The political birthright or anchor baby controversy has been debated for many years and only after the Arizona SB1070 crackdown on illegal immigration has it been brought back to the forefront.

Legislation aimed at changing the 14th Amendment and the scope of birthright citizenship has been debated in many Congressional sessions but failed to gain any real traction.

According to legal experts, when the definition of the word born (in the 14th Amendment) is challenged, aside from Justice William O’Douglas footnote, the only legislative history refers to Negro populations for purposes of counting for Congressional districts.

There has not and was not any debate during the 14th Amendment process or thereafter as to the meaning of the word “born.” The reason being was that former slaves were already considered citizens for purposes of determining Congressional districts and representation. Under the Constitution Negro slaves were considered property, but for purposes of the census were counted as three-fifths per white male.

The distinction between the freed slaves of the 14th Amendment and present day illegal immigrants is that Negroes were already considered citizens of the States in which they were born, however, present day illegal immigrants do not have that Constitutional nexus. This distinction between the Negroes of the 14th Amendment and the illegal immigrants of today would make it very difficult for the Supreme Court of the United States to overrule a narrowed Congressional definition, particularly since Congress has the exclusive power under the Constitution to determine immigration and naturalization.

If Congress is brave and bold they would provide a fail-proof solution to the 14th Amendment issue on birthright citizenship.

Since there is no definition (8USC Sec. 1101 definition reads) of the word “born” even though it is referenced several times an addition seems natural. An example of a definition would read something along these lines; “for the purposes of this chapter and wherever used in relation to immigration or naturalization, including the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the meaning of the word ‘born’ shall mean a child born in the United States, its territories or possessions, of a parent who is a natural born or nationalized citizen of the State in which the birth of the child is recorded.”

Internationally, a trend has formed as countries have moved away from universal birthright citizenship including but are not limited to; England, Australia, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and the Dominican Republic.

According to NumbersUSA, a Washington D.C. immigration think tank, an overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic birthright citizenship.

In a new report, ‘Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,’ the Center for Immigration Studies’ legal policy analyst Jon Feere reviews “the history of the issue in American law and presents the most up-to-date research on birthright citizenship policies throughout the world. The global findings are the result of direct communication with foreign government officials and analysis of foreign law. The report concludes that Congress should promote a serious discussion about whether the United States should automatically confer the benefits and burdens of U.S. citizenship on the children of aliens whose presence is temporary or illegal.”

The report further finds that only 30 of the 194 countries grant citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants; the advanced economies of Canada and the United States only give citizenship to children born to illegal aliens; the global trend is moving away from birthright citizenship;14th Amendment history indicates that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens; The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal.

It’s time for Congress to act on the immigration problems facing America. Securing the borders alone will not be enough to fix the complexity of the issue. However, defining the meaning of the word “BORN” would be another step in the right direction.

For more stories;

Senator Graham likes the idea of striking birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

Looking past Arizona’s SB1070 ruling this week, some lawmakers are toying with the idea of ending the “birthright citizenship, birth tourism or anchor baby” policies America currently has in place.

After the Arizona ruling came down Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News that “birthright citizenship” needs to be changed.

“I’m a practical guy, but when you go forward I don’t want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now,” he told Fox News. “Let’s have a system that doesn’t reward people for cheating.”

In the past lawmakers have tried to implement similar measures through the states, however Graham said he may try introducing a constitutional amendment.

“We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen,” he said. “They come here to drop a child – it’s called ‘drop and leave.’ … That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”

If the Senator goes through the amendment process is will be a permanent solution but the process is much more difficult. Changing the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 states is the magic number to amend the Constitution).

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor told Fox News, the push is a “pie in the sky” matter and didn’t believe it would survive any court challenges.

“It’s spiteful,” Wildes said. “These are U.S. citizens. … They’re babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another.”

A similar measure was introduced in April of last year by former Congressman Nathan Deal. His proposed legislation would have stripped birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment because he says the law only applies if one of the child’s parents is a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant.

However the bill perished in the House despite the fact it had 92 co-sponsors.

The author of Arizona SB1070, Republican Russell Pearce has considered putting forth a similar birthright citizenship bill at the Arizona state level.

Pearce maintains the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans not to give every child born in the U.S. citizenship.

“Illegal wasn’t illegal then,” Pearce explained. “If you think about it, it’s illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have – the citizenship of your child. … It was never intended to do that.”

According to NumbersUSA, a responsible legal immigration think tank, there are no European nations that grant birthright citizenship and Canada is the only developed nation other than the United States to provide citizenship to those simply born on a country’s soil.

Another birthright law was introduced in California dubbed the “California Taxpayer Protection Act.” The measure would have curtailed the birthright citizenship process; however the initiative failed to collect enough signatures to be on the November ballot in the Golden State.

“It’s been a long process to get us this far,” said Ted Hilton of Taxpayer Revolution, the group who authored the initiative. “I’d say we’ve been working on this for more than 10 years. I’ve consulted with many Constitutional attorneys to get it right.”

His hard work was put to the test and he vows to keep fighting for a change in the state’s citizenship law in the future. “California has been hit hard with illegal alien public spending that is out of control,” Hilton said.

Highlights of the proposed birthright citizenship bill included, applicants for state, local, and state-administered federal aid to verify lawful presence in the United States. Additionally, applications for public benefits submitted by undocumented parents on behalf of their lawful-resident children would be given to federal authorities.

According to the Attorney General for the state of California, who prepares the title and summary, the state would deny birth certificates to children born to undocumented parents unless the mother provides a fingerprint and other information to be given to the federal authorities.

Finally, the initiative would have eliminated benefits for children in child-only CalWORKS cases which are not mandated by federal law.

“This initiative follows the intent of the framers of this country,” U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif. said. “Article V of the 14th Amendment gives us the right to define subject to the jurisdiction.”

The bottom line is the California initiative would use a common sense approach, according to Bilbray. “This is a concept of fairness that is very moderately written to solve some of California’s problems.” He continued to say that it is absurd to write welfare checks to people without checking their legal status.
The Taxpayer Revolution grassroots group contends that the state could save upwards of $2 billion dollars each year which would help close the state’s $20 billion budget gap.

“This initiative will save taxpayer money and slow down rampant illegal border crossings,” Hilton contends.

Agreeing with the proposed birthright citizenship laws is Cuban national, Tony Dolz, a naturalized citizen, who immigrated legally to this country and strongly believes in reforming the anchor baby system. “My father was an attorney before he died and instilled on his children a respect for the rule of law and above all for the U.S. Constitution.”

“We are a generous nation as shown by taking 1.5 million immigrants annually, a greater number than any other nation in the world,” Dolz explains. “I believe that foreigners who jump in front of the line of millions of law abiding foreigners that are in the process of complying with our immigration laws and who are doing so are showing disrespect for our country and its laws.”

California state officials estimate between 20-25 percent of all births each year are to those in the country illegally. According to Hilton, it is becoming evident that the parents lack the ability to pay for these births and immediately require public services to care for these children.

“Our citizen movement will continue to launch a state and national debate to bring an end to “birth tourism” and automatic citizenship in the United States,” Hilton said.
Other items included in the California anchor-baby initiative:

*Requires illegal mother to provide identification with a photograph, fingerprints and fees in person
*Ends all illegal public funded benefits
*Ends prenatal care for illegal aliens

*Terminates all child welfare checks to illegal aliens (some of which are sent out of the country)

%d bloggers like this: