http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_...

AP -- U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.

Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult. Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country's traditions of welcoming immigrants.

Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: "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." That provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

"This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole," said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

Under Deal's proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.

Azadeh Shahshahani, director of the Immigrants Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, said the proposed law "is not cognizant with the American spirit."

"We would stand in strong opposition to this bill as it's in fundamental contradiction to our nation's long history of welcoming immigrants and bestowing inalienable rights" on all people born here, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, she said.

Story continues below Supporters of the bill say automatic citizenship provides an incentive for women to risk coming to the country illegally. They call U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants "anchor babies" because, when they become adults, the children can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency.

"Coming into the country for the express purpose of having a child in order to anchor that child and yourself is, in effect, gaming the system," Dane said.

Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, said the proposed law wouldn't stem illegal immigration and would make the problem worse because not only would illegal immigrants be undocumented, their American-born children would be too.

"The worst part of it is you end up with potentially millions of children who are stateless, who were born here and have no ties to any other country, yet they're not considered citizens or part of the United States," she said.

Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that favors restricting immigration, said the policy of granting automatic citizenship to people born here is "out of sync with the modern world." He and Deal said that the U.S. is one of the few wealthy industrialized nations that still allows birthright citizenship.

Deal, who has submitted his bill to the House Judiciary Committee, said he's not optimistic about it becoming law this year unless it is tacked onto another bill.

"I think the current makeup of the Congress is such that this will never get a hearing and will never be an issue that we get a chance to vote on," he said. "But I think it's important to keep the issues that are part of the immigration problem alive."






Opinions?

Tags: birthright, citizenship, hispanic, immigration

Views: 8

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

1) I'm sure there are websites out there railing against "anchor babies," and you're probably right about them being filled with racist filth. This discussion is not one of those sites... so what's your point? Misty didn't introduce the term to the discussion, it was present in the article she posted, which was written by the Associated Press before being published on the Huffington Post. Is there a misdirection of ire here?

2) Frankly, I don't care for the discussion either and agree with your reasons. That still doesn't preclude people from explaining why their argument is right and the other is wrong before descending into a crescendo of ad hominem. Calling someone a racist is a pretty serious charge and ought to be substantiated.

So let me ask you--which course of action would have yielded useful results: demonstrating why it's a bad idea using reason and, if it can be used to help your case, using examples to show how it's racist? Or... begin a witch hunt by carelessly tossing around the word "racist" without actually making an argument? I saw a great deal more of the latter than the former.

I would prefer to see it soundly defeated with a well-reasoned argument, and I think you would too. Going straight to the you're-a-racist rant does nothing but kill what could have been a damn good smackdown.
Doone,
Let me get this straight before I jump to any conclusions as to your intelligence or cognitive reasoning abilities:

You call my arguments racist and hate-filled because of what some person I've never met nor exchanged information with authors a website you want us to look up?
So the opinion of a person outside of this discussion is somehow being aided even though they aren't aware that the discussion is taking place, and most importantly YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF RACISM in the argument to begin with? If you've got anything at all state it now. I want to see some clear and present connections. Right now.

It isn't a generational problem, it's a personal one. You know it and I know it. You are so offended that I had bad things to say about your wife's country of birth (though not about her personally, nor the race of the people, nor anything you can even scrape up as a legitimate argument) that you thought you saw an opportunity to paint me as a racist, only when I actually invite you to c&p any content I've ever written, because I sure know I've never said anything so closed minded, you've tucked tail and turned into a pity-party. That is what you are. Someone that makes inflammatory statements and can't back them up is nothing but a shit-stirring drama queen begging for attention.

If you were so offended by this discussion then you should have ignored it. If you can't handle a mature conversation, then you should have stepped away from the computer until you could. Grow up or shut up.

How dare YOU, an atheist use the "it's so offensive" excuse when your very existence is an offense to religion? How dare you claim the rights of a free thinker when you can't handle it if someone disagrees with you? How dare you use the same excuse that religion has used for thousands of years to silence anyone that thinks differently? "I'm angry and offended" is the excuse of those that bombed the Danish Embassy, not someone that has grown past the idea that nothing is sacred and above discussion and criticism. You sound like the U.N resolution to "protect religion."

Just because I am not advocating open boarders does not mean I'm a racist.
Just because I state that there is a resource problem does not mean I'm against immigration. You seem to think that you've got the copyright on tolerance and anyone that doesn't agree must be a bigot. The sad thing is, your very tactics are those used by the real bigots, and that makes you closer to their camp than I am.
I'm totally sure but I don't think anyone on the forum actually wants this bill to pass. Misty playin' the devil's advocate doesn't mean she supports it.
Racism doesn't have to be the reason that you are seein'. As a devil's advocate, they are statin' the side that is bein' opposed & I have not seen a racist remark.
It's immigration. I read the bill (HR 1868) and no specific race was mentioned. Perhaps Representative Deal is a racist but it doesn't make Misty or Frink one.
It's been discussed. At length. In fact, you might want to go back a page or two and see that I've responded to every one of your points in kind, using direct quotes.
Now I've asked you to do the same to show some explanation of how it is racist, and you don't.
You've said everything from "it just is" to "it is because I was raised Jewish so I know what racism is better than you" to "I've already shown how a number of times (but then refused to cut and copy where you showed it, or give any direct reference.)

Now, this is my argument nice and clear for the new folks that don't want to scroll back.
I started this discussion because I thought that while the bill overall wasn't a very good one, it was taking a new step in immigration issues. I do not support changing the way citizenship is granted in any way. I do however think that there needs to be an approach that will make the legalization process of immigrants easier and reachable by a larger majority. I think that illegal immigration needs to be slowed considerably for the good of all people, those that have been living there fifty years, or those that have been living there five. A list of my suggestions (now far lost, I suppose) was allowing a 'find-work/find-new work' period instead of direct company sponsorship (which makes immigrants vulnerable to exploitation) as well as instant citizenship for those serving in the military and their immediate families, the reduction of non-essential social services for a recommended waiting period while on a work permit, the inability to sponsor anyone that has a criminal record, including that of illegal immigration and the citizenship status granted to anyone with a clean criminal record and proof of an undetermined amount of time's constant work or education that is already currently residing in the U.S. These laws are to apply to all immigrants, be they a Hispanic priest, an Indian investor or my Scottish boyfriend. Race has no factor in the appeals process (which could be improved) to take into consideration special case needs.

Now, please debate THESE points without further hysteria or shut the hell up.
Dude, you must read that for what it says^. It's not in support of Deal's HR 1868.
Why is that? Are you sayin' only people of color come into the country illegally? Even European anglo-saxons have a hard time gettin' into the country.
Do you have record of this?
No it isn't. It isn't effecting the citizenship of anyone born in America. (That's the 14th, btw)
It is effecting the sponsorship eligibility of people that are not citizens and have broken American laws. This falls under immigration policy, not citizenship. That is the policy that changes quite often already.
I can't see it standin' since this is all hypothetical & since Misty is "playin'" the devil's advocate. She does not support the bill. She see room for restructurin', not abolishin' the entire 14th.

This does not make her or Frink a racist.
Reminds me on how my race is on the brink of extinction due to all the world tramplin' on my ancestor's homeland, be it African, Jew, Arab, Nordic, Alpine. In fact, I should be the one shoutin' racism here.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 57 minutes ago. 94 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service