Illegal immigration has turned into a massive problem. Obama’s refusal to enforce any immigration laws and his blatant protection of illegal alien criminals has highlighted a problem that has gone on for decades. The question of anchor babies and the 14th Amendment should be an easy one. There is no question it’s a ridiculous policy but many in the GOP won’t even take a stand on that.
The strongest GOP opponent of illegal immigration, right or wrong, is Donald Trump. Even his comment about deporting all illegal immigrants hasn’t stopped him because he is talking about an issue that matters and he has convinced people he will do something about it.
National Journal’s Lauren Fox believes Republicans “must appear tough on illegal immigration” — however, a policy that essentially undoes a key part of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment] “could undermine a candidate’s ability to make inroads with the Latino community during the general election — a constituency that the party desperately needs to appeal to if it hopes to improve upon the 27 percent of the Latino vote that Mitt Romney won in 2012.”
The GOP believes that.
The debate on the 14th Amendment is not a debate about deporting all illegal immigrants, it’s about stopping a flawed policy.
There are 5 to 10 million anchor babies in the United States. Their status allows them to bring in their entire families right down to 4th cousins through chain migration. It is a breakdown in the rule of law. As of 2010, one out of every ten births was to an illegal alien mother.
We have a problem birth tourism from Europe, failed states and communist nations which our leaders choose to ignore.
In prior articles, I wrote that Canada and the U.S. were the only two countries that allowed this practice, but that was not accurate. Canadian immigration officials have corrected that. They only do it in rare, special cases. Europe abandoned birthright citizenship years ago.
The U.S. is the only country in the West that follows this practice. If other countries don’t do it, why do we think it would be inhumane if we didn’t? Are we so convinced that we have no right to borders, control over immigration, and a hold on our sovereignty?
One might ask, if we can’t get a GOP candidate with the courage to say this has to change, what will they oppose?
Charles Krauthammer got into a debate on Special Report with Laura Ingraham, a constitutional lawyer, and she pummeled him.
Trump is doing well in the polls, Ingraham believes, because both parties have failed them. They’ve failed the American worker.
She explained to Charles that it was not a “sideshow” as he described it and it’s an important issue for a lot of people. As hard as it is for the GOP to understand, illegal immigration needs to be part of their platform and they’ve ignored it.
Her best line was this:
“It’s important because when people break into your home, you don’t allow them to force you to take care of your family. People wouldn’t do that in their own home and they don’t want us to do it in the United States.”
Both Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who is also a constitutional attorney, have said that the 14th Amendment was never meant to allow massive illegal immigration, which wasn’t an issue in the middle 1800s. The two court cases that allegedly uphold it are up for serious question. Many believe it can be overturned by law and that should at least be attempted.
Not in the way of supporting or not supporting Donald Trump, it is important to note that he is the one who made illegal immigration an issue. Prior to Trump entering the scene, few GOP candidates even mentioned illegal immigration. Most support full amnesty with a path to citizenship even before the border is closed.
Neither of the two parties have stopped illegal immigration and, as Ingraham says, “people are tired of it.”
Bill O’Reilly has insisted the 14th Amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court and no law can change it. He battled with Trump and a number of others over it.
A tirelessly brash Ann Coulter hashtagged one of her tweets about O’Reilly with #GoodGodHesStupid for his stance on the anchor baby issue being decided in the law.
She has been supporting Trump’s use of the descriptive term, “anchor baby.”
Coulter isn’t happy with Carly Fiorina or Chris Christie for their weak positions on the anchor baby issue.
After citing experts and Harry Reid, Coulter said in a radio interview that it is not in the Constitution and any candidate who would say that has no idea what the Civil War was about.
Coulter added that “It wasn’t about illegal aliens running across the border…Do you think this is part of the Constitution, do you think [this is why] we fought a Civil War?
Congress obviously has the legislative authority to alter or enact new immigration law or to correct misinterpretations, she asserted.
They did it for Native-Americans in 1923 when they extended citizenship to them.
Eminent legal scholars and jurists, including Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have questioned whether the 14th Amendment should be read to mandate such a permissive citizenship policy.
In a radio appearance on Wednesday, conservative host Laura Ingraham asked Chris Christie for his opinion on birthright citizenship, a topic he didn’t specifically addressed before. In response, Christie said he believed the policy may be outdated.
“I think all this stuff needs to be reexamined in light of the current circumstances,” he said. “[Birthright citizenship] may have made sense at some point in our history, but right now, we need to re-look at all that.”
The weakness of the statement doesn’t instill confidence in light of the fact that no administration has stopped illegal immigration though they said they would.
During his Senate campaign, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he thought the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born immigrant children “should stop,” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has called the policy “a mistake.”
Rand’s father, Ron Paul, attempted to pass legislation that would have stopped it but he hit the usual congressional brick wall.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another contender for the Republican nomination, once opposed birthright citizenship — however, he recently changed his position, saying he would not include it in his immigration policy if elected president. He also shares President Obama’s position that we shouldn’t deport people – it’s “inhumane.”
Both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have defended birthright citizenship, Dr. Carson has not.
Governor Walker won’t take a position.
NPR claims the number of anchor babies born each year is relatively small. Relative to what and by whose standards? One in ten is significant and we don’t even know for sure because people here illegally don’t necessarily let us know. It’s very expensive.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children.
Illegal immigrants usually access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.
The short-term cost of “anchor babies” was revealed a decade ago in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. “‘Anchor babies’ born to illegal aliens instantly qualify as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income and Disability Income,” wrote medical attorney Madeleine Pelner Cosman.
Long-term costs are chain migration and the fact that families of U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not generally deported.
You can’t have illegal immigration and an enormous welfare state without it quickly becoming unsustainable.
The more nothing is done and the more illegals demand of citizens as if they were entitled to it, the more people will want to deport them all.