Jump to content
Janelle2002

House Republicans Go After Birthright Citizenship

15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/house-republicans-birthright-citizenship_n_7174686.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

n-STEVE-KING-large570.jpg

WASHINGTON -- Democrats in Congress frequently accuse the GOP of attacking immigrants, and on Wednesday, House Republicans gave them more fodder by holding a hearing on whether the U.S. should continue the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to all children born here.

Some Republicans argue that birthright citizenship incentivizes unauthorized immigration and birth tourism. They add that the 14th Amendment, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," has been misinterpreted to apply to children of undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) have both introduced bills this year to end birthright citizenship, but neither has gone for a vote.

Even if those bills never get a vote -- and they likely won't -- the fact that the issue got a hearing at all provided fuel for Democrats, who were fiery in their defense of the right for babies born on U.S. soil to be citizens.

"This birthright citizenship legislation and a decision to hold a hearing on its merits are outrageous examples of just how far shameless Republicans are willing to go to demonstrate their hatred for immigrants," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said at a press conference, accusing Republicans of using the bill to stigmatize and sow hate for immigrants.

At the same press conference, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said, "In Spanish-language media there will be one more piece of evidence that Republicans will do anything and everything to keep their nativist wing happy."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a statement accusing Republicans of pandering "to the most radical, anti-immigrant corners of their party" and called the idea "one of the most loathsome, xenophobic proposals in recent memory." In a separate statement, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) called the hearing "a humiliating reminder of the jingoistic insensitivity of the few toward multiculturalism and the changing face of America in the 21st Century."

The same day, a coalition of pro-immigration reform groups released a reportdetailing what it called the "2015 GOP mass deportation agenda."

Many Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), defended the decision to hold the hearing.

"The question of whether our forefathers meant for birthright citizenship in all circumstances to be the law of the land is far from settled," Goodlatte said at the hearing. "In any event, we must still determine if it is the right policy for America today."

King was the most adamant that it was not the right policy. He questioned what would happen "to the demographics of America if this policy is not reversed," and implied that Democrats may support birthright citizenship because they want to win elections.

"I don't think I'm hearing an argument as to why it would be a good idea to grant automatic citizenship to any baby that could be born in the United States to any mother who could find a way to get into the United States," he said. "That hands over the immigration policy to everyone except Americans. So I don't know that that's even a debate before this committee unless you want to expand your political base by any means necessary."

Witnesses from the Republican side -- John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies and University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia -- all argued against granting automatic citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., either as unnecessary under the law or bad policy.

"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one that makes unauthorized entry into the country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry: a grant of American citizenship," Graglia, who was testifying on behalf of himself and not the university, said during his testimony.

Graglia's appearance gave another chance for Democrats to go on the offensive. He has a long history of racially insensitive remarks, from allegedly using the derogatory term "pickaninny" to saying black and Hispanic students cannot compete with white students and that it therefore was not "good for whites to be with the lower classes." Both Gutierrez and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) brought up his past comments during the hearing.

Edited by Janelle2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graglia's appearance gave another chance for Democrats to go on the offensive. He has a long history of racially insensitive remarks, from allegedly using the derogatory term "pickaninny" to saying black and Hispanic students cannot compete with white students and that it therefore was not "good for whites to be with the lower classes."

It simply won't do for our precious white future captains of industry to mix with the lower classes. The brown might rub off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we start a family and raise our children as Americans are not okay to them? Or is it okay because they will be white and English speaking?


K-1 - AOS & ROC Timeline  - Immigration and the Health Exchange Price of Love in the UK Thinking of Returning to UK?

 

First met: 12/31/04 - Engaged: 9/24/09
Filed I-129F: 10/4/14 - Packet received: 10/7/14
NOA 1 email + ARN assigned: 10/10/14 (hard copy 10/17/14)
Touched on website (fixed?): 12/9/14 - Poked USCIS: 4/1/15
NOA 2 email: 5/4/15 (hard copy 5/11/15)
Sent to NVC: 5/8/15 - NVC received + #'s assigned: 5/15/15 (estimated)
NVC sent: 5/19/15 - London received/ready: 5/26/15
Packet 3: 5/28/15 - Medical: 6/16/15
Poked London 7/1/15 - Packet 4: 7/2/15
Interview: 7/30/15 - Approved!
AP + Issued 8/3/15 - Visa in hand (depot): 8/6/15
POE: 8/27/15

Wedding: 9/30/15

Filed I-485, I-131, I-765: 11/7/15

Packet received: 11/9/15

NOA 1 txt/email: 11/15/15 - NOA 1 hardcopy: 11/19/15

Bio: 12/9/15

EAD + AP approved: 1/25/16 - EAD received: 2/1/16

RFE for USCIS inability to read vax instructions: 5/21/16 (no e-notification & not sent from local office!)

RFE response sent: 6/7/16 - RFE response received 6/9/16

AOS approved/card in production: 6/13/16  

NOA 2 hardcopy + card sent 6/17/16

Green Card received: 6/18/16

USCIS 120 day reminder notice: 2/22/18

Filed I-751: 5/2/18 - Packet received: 5/4/18

NOA 1:  5/29/18 (12 mo) 8/13/18 (18 mo)  - Bio: 6/27/18

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we start a family and raise our children as Americans are not okay to them? Or is it okay because they will be white and English speaking?

I don't think those are the concerns. If you're white and English speaking and come here simply to give birth so your child is an American, they'd like that just as little. If you lawfully settle here to start a family, your child should be American whether English is your native tongue or not. That's at least how I understand the effort. And I agree with that approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think those are the concerns. If you're white and English speaking and come here simply to give birth so your child is an American, they'd like that just as little. If you lawfully settle here to start a family, your child should be American whether English is your native tongue or not. That's at least how I understand the effort. And I agree with that approach.

Do we actually have any figures/statistics on ''birth tourism'' of such that it would be of such grave concern to lawmakers? Let's remove DACA/DAPA/anyone illegal at the moment from those statistics. Because I don't exactly buy the reasoning they're giving here. I don't see them actually being concerned about birth tourism, but more concerned about stopping illegal immigrants from having status granted to their children from birth. So I just want to be clear what their intent is here. What a politician says it means is usually not what it actually means.


K-1 - AOS & ROC Timeline  - Immigration and the Health Exchange Price of Love in the UK Thinking of Returning to UK?

 

First met: 12/31/04 - Engaged: 9/24/09
Filed I-129F: 10/4/14 - Packet received: 10/7/14
NOA 1 email + ARN assigned: 10/10/14 (hard copy 10/17/14)
Touched on website (fixed?): 12/9/14 - Poked USCIS: 4/1/15
NOA 2 email: 5/4/15 (hard copy 5/11/15)
Sent to NVC: 5/8/15 - NVC received + #'s assigned: 5/15/15 (estimated)
NVC sent: 5/19/15 - London received/ready: 5/26/15
Packet 3: 5/28/15 - Medical: 6/16/15
Poked London 7/1/15 - Packet 4: 7/2/15
Interview: 7/30/15 - Approved!
AP + Issued 8/3/15 - Visa in hand (depot): 8/6/15
POE: 8/27/15

Wedding: 9/30/15

Filed I-485, I-131, I-765: 11/7/15

Packet received: 11/9/15

NOA 1 txt/email: 11/15/15 - NOA 1 hardcopy: 11/19/15

Bio: 12/9/15

EAD + AP approved: 1/25/16 - EAD received: 2/1/16

RFE for USCIS inability to read vax instructions: 5/21/16 (no e-notification & not sent from local office!)

RFE response sent: 6/7/16 - RFE response received 6/9/16

AOS approved/card in production: 6/13/16  

NOA 2 hardcopy + card sent 6/17/16

Green Card received: 6/18/16

USCIS 120 day reminder notice: 2/22/18

Filed I-751: 5/2/18 - Packet received: 5/4/18

NOA 1:  5/29/18 (12 mo) 8/13/18 (18 mo)  - Bio: 6/27/18

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we actually have any figures/statistics on ''birth tourism'' of such that it would be of such grave concern to lawmakers? Let's remove DACA/DAPA/anyone illegal at the moment from those statistics. Because I don't exactly buy the reasoning they're giving here. I don't see them actually being concerned about birth tourism, but more concerned about stopping illegal immigrants from having status granted to their children from birth. So I just want to be clear what their intent is here. What a politician says it means is usually not what it actually means.

I think we know that literally millions of kids are born here to people that do not lawfully reside here. Whether birth tourism or not, I don't think that citizenship ought to be bestowed on children born here to parents that do not lawfully reside here. There aren't many places in the world where such a broad view is taken of birthright citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against birth tourism.

I agree 100%

I think we know that literally millions of kids are born here to people that do not lawfully reside here. Whether birth tourism or not, I don't think that citizenship ought to be bestowed on children born here to parents that do not lawfully reside here. There aren't many places in the world where such a broad view is taken of birthright citizenship.

I need to rethink my position, because we actually agree. I am going to cut my self to see if I still feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we know that literally millions of kids are born here to people that do not lawfully reside here. Whether birth tourism or not, I don't think that citizenship ought to be bestowed on children born here to parents that do not lawfully reside here. There aren't many places in the world where such a broad view is taken of birthright citizenship.

Not that I disagree with you, but you are aware this is a complex issue. Where does it end exactly? We know that there are millions of kids born here to parents that came and remain illegal. This however, isn't the child's fault. They are here, have lived here and grown up here. They speak the language, are educated, and for the most part identify as Americans. Their parents have placed them in an impossible situation that is not of their own choosing.

Where you feel that illegal immigrant children should not have status, I know there are probably also some that feel even legal immigrant children shouldn't have status. It's concerning because this sentiment has even been expressed in my fiancé's country.

Birth tourism. Sure, I'm against that, if it does exist.


K-1 - AOS & ROC Timeline  - Immigration and the Health Exchange Price of Love in the UK Thinking of Returning to UK?

 

First met: 12/31/04 - Engaged: 9/24/09
Filed I-129F: 10/4/14 - Packet received: 10/7/14
NOA 1 email + ARN assigned: 10/10/14 (hard copy 10/17/14)
Touched on website (fixed?): 12/9/14 - Poked USCIS: 4/1/15
NOA 2 email: 5/4/15 (hard copy 5/11/15)
Sent to NVC: 5/8/15 - NVC received + #'s assigned: 5/15/15 (estimated)
NVC sent: 5/19/15 - London received/ready: 5/26/15
Packet 3: 5/28/15 - Medical: 6/16/15
Poked London 7/1/15 - Packet 4: 7/2/15
Interview: 7/30/15 - Approved!
AP + Issued 8/3/15 - Visa in hand (depot): 8/6/15
POE: 8/27/15

Wedding: 9/30/15

Filed I-485, I-131, I-765: 11/7/15

Packet received: 11/9/15

NOA 1 txt/email: 11/15/15 - NOA 1 hardcopy: 11/19/15

Bio: 12/9/15

EAD + AP approved: 1/25/16 - EAD received: 2/1/16

RFE for USCIS inability to read vax instructions: 5/21/16 (no e-notification & not sent from local office!)

RFE response sent: 6/7/16 - RFE response received 6/9/16

AOS approved/card in production: 6/13/16  

NOA 2 hardcopy + card sent 6/17/16

Green Card received: 6/18/16

USCIS 120 day reminder notice: 2/22/18

Filed I-751: 5/2/18 - Packet received: 5/4/18

NOA 1:  5/29/18 (12 mo) 8/13/18 (18 mo)  - Bio: 6/27/18

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we know that literally millions of kids are born here to people that do not lawfully reside here. Whether birth tourism or not, I don't think that citizenship ought to be bestowed on children born here to parents that do not lawfully reside here. There aren't many places in the world where such a broad view is taken of birthright citizenship.

What kind of a lefty are you? A real liberal would want to give citizenship to all illegals.


R.I.P Spooky 2004-2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×