What should be done about illegal immigration?

Perhaps you haven't heard of "dual citizenship"? And/or perhaps you're not aware of different nationality laws, e.g ius soli, ius sanguinis and mixtures of it?

their brats...

Why are you attacking children who have no say in what their parents does? Did your children have a choice in being born in Germany?

It doesn't matter much what the laws are in Germany (or any country); we Americans must live by "our" laws.

Advocate wrote:

The future moms come to the USA to give birth for the reasons I stated. They immeditely check into the maternity hotels. Then, the child gets many federal, state, and local benefits, including a free education costing the taxpayers, say, $9,000-$11,000 per year. The child returns the favor to his or her parents, and other relatives, by bringing them into the USA legally. It is a terrific scam.

Well, so try to get the 14th Amendment changed!

Do aliens flock?

when i am in germany I must live by german laws. when germans (or anyone else) is in america they must live by our laws. that is the theory at least...

A wealth of statistics exists indicating that anchor babies are a tremendous drain on our economy. The problem is the parents of anchor babies have no way of legally paying taxes, as they themselves are non-residents. Yet they still regularly use all the tax-sponsored services available to Americans. They birth their children in our public hospitals, fill our schools with non-English speakers, and crowd our prisons with drug crime. In just California alone, non-residents, make up nearly 30% of our prisons, costing California over a billion dollars annually in incarceration. Moreover, the violence typically associated with the Mexican drug trade has increasingly spilled across the border, affecting the quality of life across southwestern states.

As far as healthcare, illegal aliens give birth to about 340,000 children nation wide each year, imposing tremendous medical costs on hospitals. Several hospitals, including ones in Stockton, CA and Dallas, TX, report as many as 70% of their deliveries are to non-residents. Similarly, since the parents of infant citizens still qualify for welfare in order to protect the child, the Center for Immigration studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal aliens annually, in the form of food stamps and free lunches.

Over 29% of all education dollars get spent on teaching anchor babies, including over $1 billion dollars teaching English as a second language, according to FAIR. Similarly, several affected states offer Spanish translation services in many public arenas, at an additional cost to the taxpayers. All told, FAIR estimates that as much as $100 billion tax dollars get spent on illegal aliens annually -- this is just in education.

Baby tourists, on the other hand, appear to be doing far less economic damage. Relative to anchor baby parents, baby tourist are usually much wealthier, affording their own medical care and largely avoiding incarceration while visiting. They come over in prearranged programs, catering to elite and wealthy families who can afford the thousands of dollars in fees. Prospective mothers pay handsomely for these services, between $15,000 and $45,000 per child. These programs include coordinated tourist programs, which involve sightseeing and opportunities to spend even more money on high-end shopping. However, this is still a program that takes advantage of the amendment.

These programs are becoming increasingly popular throughout Asia. It has become the popular craze amongst upper class women throughout the region, especially China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as they see it as an opportunity to eventually get their children enrolled in American Universities. This creates a drain for resident students, as the increased population allows for less opportunities and higher costs for those who have lived their lives in America. Similarly, bills like the Dream Act aim to offer financial aid to nonresident children, siphoning funds from taxpaying students. South Koreans also find it attractive, as it precludes their children from mandatory military service (We pay to have American security forces in South Korea). The trend is also catching on outside Asia, with Nigeria and Turkey both reporting an explosion in birth tourism popularity.

The only area of the American economy negatively impacted by baby tourists is in our higher education. The key motivator for baby-tourist parents is to ensure in-country or in-state tuition, or even just basic access, for their children at top American universities. However since this is spread out across public and private universities, it is impossible to determine specifically how many tax dollars get spent educating such students. Instead, these students end up spending foreign dollars here in America; on things like tuition, rent, and living expenses. Plus, they have the ability to stay and work in America after graduating, contributing their advanced skills to our economy.

Baby tourists also become a much smaller problem when viewed relative to their anchor baby counterparts. The tourism happens far less often than anchor babies, 7,000 versus 340,000 per year. The parents of baby tourists almost always pay their own medical fees, as well as additionally convenience fees that get infused into our economy. Their offspring are usually much better educated than their anchor baby counterparts, leading to more hard science jobs entering the U.S. workforce.

While revising the first section of the 14th Amendment may seem like a handy fix, it is ony a part of the much larger discussion on immigration reform.

We still suffer racial bigotry in 2012, and while I do believe that we must address the infrastructure costs of illegal ilmmigration; the many reasons for the swelling tide of illegal immigrants deserves careful attention before we throw the anchor baby out with the bathwater of one of our most important constitutional guarantees. There must be more precise ways to fix this problem than a constitutional amendment.

But I think it could be done without an amendment. This is supported by the fact that the children of foreign diplomats born here do not become citizens. So there could be a similar exception for anchor babies.

hawkeye10 wrote:

when i am in germany I must live by german laws. when germans (or anyone else) is in america they must live by our laws. that is the theory at least...

Indeed. And we have our nationality laws - you've got it in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ....

Its scarey that a German citizen knows the Constitution better then an American citizen.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: “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.”

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” say some experts.

Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.

Furthermore, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee, according to Eastman. Taken together, he says, all this means lawmakers, if they choose, could deny birthright citizenship to the children of parents here illegally.

“The 14th Amendment is a floor, but how far above that floor we go is a matter of basic policy judgment that our Constitution assigns exclusively to the Congress of the United States,” said Eastman on Monday.

Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.

“The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific [issue] of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a US citizen,” concludes a 2005 Congressional Research Service report on birthright citizenship.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican Party's hope of running stronger presidential races by revamping immigration is about to hit a big hurdle: House Republicans.

Many House Republicans are chilly or openly hostile to the bipartisan bill before the Senate, embraced by President Barack Obama. Even substantial changes to the bill may do little to placate these lawmakers, who demand strict crackdowns on unlawful border crossings and no "amnesty" for people here illegally.

These Republicans don't deny that weak support from Hispanic voters is hurting GOP presidential nominees. And they concede the problem may worsen if Latinos think Republicans are blocking "immigration reform."

These House members, however, worry much more about their own constituents' opposition to the proposed changes. And they fear a challenge in the next Republican primary if they ignore those concerns.

"It's hard to argue with the polling they've been getting from the national level," said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, referring to signs of serious problems for Republican presidential candidates if immigration laws aren't rewritten. "I just don't experience it locally."

The proposed immigration overhaul "is very unpopular in my district," said Marchant, who represents suburbs west of Dallas. "The Republican primary voters, they're being pretty vocal with me on this subject." Besides, he said, "if you give the legal right to vote to 10 Hispanics in my district, seven to eight of them are going to vote Democrat."

Many colleagues concur.

"My district is not in favor of creating a system where people who committed a crime can jump in front of those who have tried to come here based on the law," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., describing what he fears the Senate will pass.

The Senate bill provides a pathway to citizenship for millions of people here illegally, but it tries to keep them from gaining citizenship ahead of people who went the official route.

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., summed up the dilemma for Republicans who care chiefly about electing presidents.

"Every member in the House is looking at the immigration debate through a prism of what's of concern in their district," Boustany said.

A Republican Party post-mortem of Mitt Romney's November loss to Obama concluded: "we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform," or "our party's appeal will continue to shrink."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday: "If we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016."

"We're in a demographic death-spiral as a party," Graham said.

House Republicans, however, spend far more time talking and worrying about their own election prospects, not the next presidential nominee's.

"It's a classic challenge when the best interests of the party are at odds with the best interests of the majority of the members individually," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. He is close to Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders who want a major immigration bill to pass.

"What it takes to get a deal with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president makes it extraordinarily difficult for a lot of (House) members," Cole said, "because it can cause you a big problem in your primary."

Some lawmakers say Boehner might allow a far-reaching immigration bill to pass the House even if most Republicans oppose it, with Democrats providing most of the votes. Boehner has chosen that "minority of the majority" route on some less consequential issues. Republicans, however, say it would be harder politically to use the tactic on something as momentous as rewriting the nation's immigration laws.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, exemplifies the leadership's challenge.

"A lot of people do believe that the Republicans need to get this issue behind us for presidential politics purposes," Chabot said. But they "are willing to go a lot further in reaching some agreement than a lot of us believe is good for our country."

Chabot said he would not consider an immigration bill without "very substantial border control" and a visa policy that punishes those who "cut in front of the line by just coming here illegally." The current Senate bill fails those tests, he said.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the Senate bill "is not palatable at this point" because it would allow "amnesty and lack of security" on the border.

Such opposition can't be pinned solely on the politics of isolated House districts. Republicans running statewide for the Georgia Senate seat, for instance, are among the immigration proposals' toughest critics.

"Everybody is committed to getting the issue dealt with," said Rep. Jack Kingston, but "the Senate amnesty bill probably is not going to do well in the House."

Rep. Paul Broun, also seeking Georgia's Senate nomination, said any immigration deal "must make English the official language of the country." The U.S.-Mexican border, he said, must be secured "totally, whatever it takes. A double fence high enough to make sure it's secure."

Some Republicans wince at talk of massive double fences and making English the official language. They say it fuels arguments that the GOP is unwelcoming to all Hispanics, legal or not.

The "amnesty" issue may be tougher legislatively. The Senate bipartisan team says its bill will collapse without a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants here illegally.

Supporters say the proposed pathway isn't "amnesty" because immigrants would have to earn citizenship through an arduous route that includes paying fines and taxes.

It's unclear how many House Republicans will buy that argument.

Defining "border security" also is crucial. The Senate bill's goal is for 90 percent of would-be crossers to be caught or turned back. But it doesn't make citizenship contingent on that target.

Several House Republicans say a border enforcement level of at least 90 percent must be documented before any pathway to permanent legal status — whether citizenship or not — could be started for the millions here illegally.

They're still arguing about the border control; they're too stupid to see the obvious! A high penalty in hiring illegals will stop illegal border crossings. It's that simple!

Those already here and living as good citizens need to be accepted into our country as citizens.

Comparison table[edit]
Comparison of eurozone with other economies, 2006.[33]
..................Population........GDPa......... % world Exports Imports
Eurozone 317 million ..€8.4 trillion.....14.6%.... 21.7% GDP 20.9% GDP
EU... (27) 494 million...€11.9 trillion.....21.0%... 14.3% GDP 15.0% GDP
US..............300 million...€11.2 trillion... 19.7%.... 10.8% GDP 16.6% GDP
Japan.... 128 million...€3.5 trillion.....6.3%..... 16.8% GDP 15.3% GDP