|
'Anchor Baby' to Face Scrutiny in Congress
WASHINGTON -- The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.
In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.
A turn, mind you, most americans agree with.
| Sure, but there's that Constitution thingy to reckon with on the subject. Congress would have to pass a law stating that anyone illegally in this country is not covered by the Constitution, to which the courts would likely object. |
The issue is in the 'citizenship clause' of the 14th amendment:
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 a child of illegal immigrants is born in the U.S., it isn't completely clear that said child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. For example, a child born here to a foreign diplomat clearly is not subject to our jurisdiction and so is not granted citizenship. The people who argue the point say that the child of illegals is subject to (say) Mexican jurisdiction, and so should not be granted U.S. citizenship. |
Such a hardened approach -- and the rhetoric certain to accompany it -- should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.
I don't know - I think a number of LEGAL Latinos will understand it. The republicans have to remind them that their identity is being hijacked (with the media's help) by the illegals.
| But, how many of the current Latino citizenry arrived illegally, and were later regularized? Would 20% be an over-optimistic estimate? |
Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.
Good
| No Constitutional issues there, I'd think. |
There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants.
Good.
| Time to do away with 'sanctuary cities'. |
Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status.
Those illegal aliens (not immigrants!) already have a chance at legal status - its called the Immigration Process.
House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.
Good! Now if we can only get border enforcement....
Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh
| 'harsh' -- even Fox is editorializing like this? |
immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with illegal alien Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.
President Barack Obama could be a wild card.
Bullshit! He'll back anything which pumps up the Democratic voting rolls. That is why he is suing a state to prevent any immigration enforcement.
Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-12-26 |
