House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
…“There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the “unity dinners,” the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
Birthright citizenship, or what critics call “anchor babies,” means that any child born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship, with exceptions for foreign diplomats. That attracts illegal aliens, who have children in the United States; those children later can sponsor their parents for legal immigration. (Source)
There are a handful of real conservatives in Congress, including Tom Tancredo, but I won’t become optimistic about immigration reform until I see a few bills on the floor.
The recent Paris-Area riots got me to thinking (this can be a dangerous thing). Are we breeding our own Intifada?
…All the social and structural conditions for an American Intifada are present in the relationship between Mexico and the U. S. There is a porous border between the two countries with a high level of illegal immigration. There are significant cultural, linguistic and religious differences between the U. S. and Mexico, as well. With Mexican and Latino gangs already controlling much of the drug traffic in the U. S., there is money and a social infrastructure that may be used to plan and communicate terrorist activities. Finally, there is a growing ideology of resentment over a perceived foreign occupation that may inspire young and alienated Latino insurgents.
Related posts:
{ 27 comments }
And to add on to Ron’s comment: there’s MECHA, which is an extreme group, along with others that believe that parts of the US should be given back to Mexico (modeled on the Palestinian gripes).
I can totally agree with not granting citizenship to babies whose parents are illegals.
How do we put some fire behind this proposal? Anyone have any organizations to suggest?
It made big news last week when the president of Iran said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. Why it made news is a puzzle to me, since it doesn’t represent a change in the Iranians’ position. Now, on the other hand, Vicente Fox has suggested that the United States should be wiped off the face of the map, and no one seems to notice. Maybe the difference is that Fox used language that is less inflammatory and much more oblique, and he hasn’t threatened us with nukes.
Maybe in some states. Here in Texas it seems like Mexicans are easily integrated. We work with them everyday. I think that’s different than France where there’s a kind of defacto segregation.
Not to mention we have a history that kind of lends us to integrate…no Texas schoolchild graduates without hearing about the shared struggle of Tejano and Texian against Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
Of course, some of these illegals are a different story. Heck, there was a recent poll that said 67 percent or so of Tejanos in south Texas are concerned or very concerned about illegal immigration. I don’t think legal immigrants or old established Hispanic families like a big portion of the new ones coming in.
Gary, please provide a source for the assertion that Vincente Fox suggested that the US be wiped off the map. He probably called for the border to be wiped off the map, but I don’t think he would want to do away with Mexico’s biggest benefactor.
Maybe by dumping his (Fox’s) illegals on the US he in turn is, in a way, saying “lets’ wipe the US off the face of the map”…
no inflammatory language needed just inactivity on the part of Fox
This may be a little over simplified, but regarding Ron’s Random Ruminations, I suspect the largest difference, and the biggest reason, between what’s happening in France and what’s happening on our southern border is most of our illegals are Christian or come from Christian/Catholic backgrounds. Their motivations are different. Some have the best of intentions, illegal, but essentially good intentions.
On the other hand some of them are definitely criminal, and some are major trouble makers, but the drug/people smugglers are trying to make a “profit.” However illegal it is, they are essentially running an illegal business. That can be dealt with. I think most of us wonder why it isn’t.
What’s happening in France is ideologically motivated and driven by religion. The muslims in France want to dominate the country they are entering. That must be put down and squashed. I personally don’t think they have the will to do it.
The only similarity I could think of between France and the US would be if all the Mexican (and S. American) socialist and communist starting crossing our borders to rise up and take over Texas. But even then, everybody knows, you Don’t Mess with Texas.
When they say “building a barrier along the entire US-Mexico border,” I wonder if they’re speaking figuratively. I wonder how many billions of dollars that project would cost.
“Some have the best of intentions, illegal, but essentially good intentions.”
In all honesty Mr. C…
that in light of true biblical Christianity do not even go hand in hand together. There is no such thing as illegal and good intentions….
still illegal, still a violation of governing law (and since it is not a law that makes the law breaker choose between their Lord and the govenrment… it is in violation of God’s word).
I’m not addressing the issue of their Christianity, only stating the obvious that they are mainly Christian/Catholic and are therefor not trying to take over the Southern United States for religious purposes.
Illegal is illegal. I get it. I’m Christian. And if I was destitute and living mere miles away from freedom and richness, I too would cross the border. It doesn’t make it OK, but the justification for coming across the border is still different from the those in France.
They need to come into this country legally. And, understanding why they come here doesn’t soften my position on how to deal with the problem. They need to be rounded up and deported. They need to be put in jail.
And if you are implying it is a sin for them to come across the border, then OK. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But repentance and acceptance of the one savior will still get them into the kingdom of heaven.
The muslims in France are pouring gas on disabled people and setting them on fire – there is no forgiveness for that. The riots need to be crushed and the people driven out. Conform or leave.
Renee
What is a violation of God’s word?
#5: Please re-read my comment carefully. I said Fox had “suggested” (def: “to call to mind by thought or association. Syn: imply, hint, intimate, insinuate) the end of the United States, and I pointed out that his language was deliberately vague and non-inflammatory, e.g. calling for an EU-like North American confederation. Of course, such a political/economic union would spell the end for the USA as we have known it. As for the idea that Mexico could kill its benefactor, I doubt very much that Mexico’s elites have even considered that possibility.
Antonio…
you might want to read it to answer that question
Just in case antonio…
that would mean study the Word (the Bible)…
and if it be His will, God will show grace on you to reveal the answer to that question (which is in His Word)
Renee
Although it’s quite cute to say study the Word, you didn’t answer my question. Deflection is good, but my question to you is what seems to be a violation of God’s Word.
By the way, I study and mediate about God’s Word. Now that we know that, please answer my question.
Fl Mom: I think the 14th Amendment would have to be amended first: (Section 1) “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…”
In voicing my own “solution” to this problem years ago, my own smart-alecky offspring were outraged at my cruelty and insensitivity:
To keep the American-born babies and send their parent(s) back over the border. The citizen-babies would be adopted by American families, and the practice would sharply curtail border-crossing to give birth (naturalization status) in the U.S. And, yes, it’s harsh, but it would address that particular problem.
Merry
Representative Flake’s understanding of the constitution is a bit flakey, as is Rep. Tancredo. What part of “all” — in the 14th Ammendment– don’ they undertand. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Constitution does not differentiate between the children of “legal” and “illegal” immigrants, and any attempt to change that would be struck down by the Supreme Court.
La Shawn:
In New Orleans, insurers have required the flood control system to be upgraded before any serious reconstruction is done in flood-prone areas.
Likewise, before any of Bush et al’s grandiose plans for “guest workers” has any serious merit, a secure border – i.e. “the fence’ must be built.
Not rocket science.
La Shawn,
It’s hard to see anything being done by either major party about illegal immigration. Most Republicans (including Bush) wet their pants when they are accused of “racism” by Democrats and the MSM. The GOP is not called the “Stupid Party” for nothing.
On this issue – on all issues, really – Democrats and the MSM are lying (How do I know they are lying? It’s easy – their lips move when they talk.). Count on them to search diligently for a solution to illegal immigration the way a mouse diligently searches for a cat. Besides, the MSM and the Democratic Party these days are occupied with other matters. Keeping Saddam Hussein’s boots sparkling clean, for one thing. Exposing the world-wide Jewish/neocon conspiracy is another.
I suspect it will take another 9/11 – a whole series of them probably – before there is a chance that anything gets done about illegal immigration.
Merry Whitney is right, the Consttitution would have to be amended. The US Congress does not have the authority to pass a law of such a nature. But our representatives have so little understanding of the Constitution (due to the lousy public school system) that they dont even know it. That includes both the Democrats and the Republicans.
I am wondering if the 14th Amendment definition of citizenship would actually prevent the US from sending an infant born in the US along with his parents to the home country of his/her illegal immigrant parents. It would seem the child would hold dual citizenship and would be qualified to act upon his/her US Citizenship upon reaching the age of emancipation in his/her home country.
Yes, the fact that it’s illegal and should be stopped aside, we are relatively lucky in the Christian culture and work ethic of the desperate Mexicans, betrayed by their own government’s corruption and mismanagement, who are entering. (I say that being Jewish – alas, if only hordes of Jews were available to jump the fences).
Cancelling birthright is the holy grail of immigration policy, along with policing the border. If Bush had done both five years ago, conservatives would be listening with open minds to his worker proposals now.
Admire him as I do, he has showed contempt for the American people on this issue.
Whoops – shown. I’m not that grammatically stupid.
I think even if we see a few bills hit the floor that the GOP won’t take action against illegal immigration. Except for a select few, both parties will conveniently see to it that the bills get bottled up in committee on a re-write or will somehow conveniently disappear. The two mainstream parties get too much benefit from illegal immigrants to actually put a stop to it, unless they start getting thrown out of office by voters.
Ah yes, an amendment. That’s what they’re for, right? This is an issue of national security so I would hope that it’s important enough to at least garner the consideration to amend. We wouldn’t be trying to amend the Constitution simply for the sake of altering it, but I think we’re looking for a way to stop rewarding criminal behavior. Regardless of what country a person comes from, if they’re here illegally, they shouldn’t be permitted to just birth a child and then claim some sort of right to be here.
I really dig the conversations here. They’re generally civil and not just a bunch of name calling and moving of goalposts.
#12 Gary, you said:
“Now, on the other hand, Vicente Fox has suggested that the United States should be wiped off the face of the map, and no one seems to notice.”
Yes, Fox used oblique language to communicate his desire for an end to the US, and not in the way Iran wants to put an end to Israel. We know that Fox likes to bash the yanquis when he gets a chance, but your use of the phrase “wiped off the face of the map” -which to me implies total destruction- seems like you’re deliberately trying to inflate Fox’s intentions to make them equivalent to Iran’s. When Fox says stupid things, like saying Mexicans do the work American blacks wouldn’t do, La Shawn notices. But if it was Fox’s idle chatter about an EU-style confederation, why the comparison to Iran? I’m not sure what you mean by confederation, but get the sense that you feel free trade agreements will eventually put us on the path to the beaurocratic mess the EU is making of itself. I’m doubtful of that. We already have implemented NAFTA and recently CAFTA, which will take effect Jan 1st. Yes, we’re spending money to equip poor countries to deal with a modern, globalized economy. We are upgrading and modernizing their trade infrastructure and methods, and although in the future they might be our competitors in certain industries, it hardly seems to be threatening our existence.
“Finally, there is a growing ideology of resentment over a perceived foreign occupation that may inspire young and alienated Latino insurgents.”
All that there is left is the marginalization that tancredo’s unconstitutional idea would provide.
Comments on this entry are closed.