US immigration debate heats up over proposed “Anchor Babies” law
Published: 15 June, 2010, 03:49
Edited: 18 June, 2010, 07:18
TAGS: Children, Politics, Immigration, USA
Arizona is considering a new proposal that would deny the children of illegal immigrants born in America their constitutional right to US citizenship.
The “birthright citizenship” movement in the United States has slowly grown over the years and has begun to accelerate more recently as the immigration debate heats up.
The “birthright citizenship” debate centers around the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution, which grants all individuals born on US soil legal right to citizenship. This rule has become a pivotal issue among anti-immigration activists who want to eliminate or alter the law to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the US simply to have children, referred to as “anchor babies.”
Constitution and pro-immigration activists say the proposal is unconstitutional and violates the supreme law of the United States, while anti-immigration activists claim this is a problem in need of an effective solution.
Bob Dane, the communications director of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) supports the legislation and said it is a positive step towards effectively helping the “besieged citizens of Arizona.”
“There are two major magnets why people come here illegally; the jobs magnet and the opportunity to have a baby,” said Dane.
Dane argued that the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was created for the protection of former slaves seeking citizenship after the US Civil War and is now being used as a "loop-hole."
“All these individuals who are proposing children born in the United States to undocumented parents should not gain US citizenship as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and I might add that it cost us a hell of a lot of blood to ensure that citizenship was extended to any child born in the United States. What do I think about this insane proposal?” said Juan Jose Gutierrez, the director of Vamos Unidos USA.
He continued, “These supposed defenders of the supreme law of the land are claiming something that is absolutely unacceptable. That in this day and age, rather than extending citizenship rights to those who deserve it we ought to take that away from children born in this country.”
Gutierrez argued that immigrants come to the US because they are seeking to escape poverty, as they have always sought to do. He stated that claims that assert immigrants come to the US solely for the purpose of having a child is false and “outrageous.”
“It’s racist and it’s really un-American,” said Gutierrez.
Dane argues otherwise.
“Right now 1 in 10 babies born in the United States, you’ve got 425,000 children born to illegal aliens in the United States each and every year. I mean, in California it’s almost 22%. The reasons people come are jobs and the reason people come are the opportunity to have a baby here. There is a right way and a wrong way to come to the United States and coming here, coming to the country illegally, having a child and then betting that you’re going to be able to stay is really gambling on your child’s future and then holding up your child and saying people don’t deport me because we’ll separate the family is using your child a s a human shield and it corrupts the rule of law,” said Dane.
Dane said Americans support the proposition. But he recognized that it will go before the courts, and either way he will respect the decision of the legal system.
“Americans cannot support this outrageous proposal,” said Gutierrez.
He argued that it will never receive the required 2/3 of every state legislature needed to alter the US Constitution.
“It is outrageous and racist that people should say that because parents who do not have documents are having children in this country that we should victimize infants that are coming into this world where they had absolutely no choice in the matter. I think to say that we should deny them citizenship at the same time that we’re claiming that were going and invading countries elsewhere in the world to promote democracy and denying it to children born in America is just unbelievable and the American people, the majority of them I believe, will not support that,” said Gutierrez.
14.06.2010, 10:30
3 comments
“War is an enormous disappointment for many in the US” – American journalistRT has spoken to US journalist, and TV and radio host Amy Goodman on how the Obama administration deals with its main challenges, and what the American people think of their leader. |
15.06.2010, 04:29
2 comments
Filmmaker smuggled raw footage off Mavi MarmaraIara Lee managed to save raw footage of the Israeli raid of the Gaza flotilla despite her equipment being confiscated by Israeli forces. |
Jon, Rachel, I really don't get your point - any one who is basically born on US territory, is subject to absolute US jurisdiction, other than in the case where they are under some control of a foreign power e.g a diplomatic family, which was the whole point of Senator Howard's comment; that through diplomatic control, they could be viewed as outside absolute US jurisdiction. However, that is the only class of foreigners,aliens, he was referring to. He was pretty clear that for every other class of person they would get citizenship. yes there are other cases, say where someone is born, but claims another citizenship, so is not under absolute jurisdiction, but that really isn't in the scope of the discussion, as people affected here want US citezenship. Now I don't know if you have misquoted Senator Howard, but that's how I read it as you wrote it. There isn't a list, but an alternate designation of foreigners, aliens who belong to families..... Now courts can make anything up, they often do under political control, but for me your interpretation doesn't hold water much. For me the interpretation is everyone is in unless they can be shown to be outside the absolute jurisdiction of the US, which you can argue that diplomatic families are. Do you read the following as a list - you would be guilty of an offence if you used a stick,club,which is longer than 1 metre in public.
MEJanssen, it is not going against the Constitution. Thank you Rachel for pointing out the truth about how Mexico dishes out birth certificates. These people get on TV and try to take over the conversation and care less about lying because they know the public doesn't know the difference. He clearly lied. He left out the part of Mexican law that clearly says you have to be a citizen or in Mexico legally to get a bc for your child. It's time for the game to end! Illegal immigration is destroying this nation. These people are a disgrace.












More of the same old stuff from Estados Unidos [aka Evil Empire West]