Quantum Spin

Well, due to some spammer having found this obscure blog, I have been forced to refuse Anonymous posts. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause for legitimate posters, but since I am unable to send feedback to the offending servers causing them to explode and burst into flames - well, I do what I can. Thank you to all my sincere commentators and may the spammers rot in digital agony.

Friday, May 19, 2006

This Is A Great Idea

We need to curtail the influx of illegals and put an end to those who come here merely to give birth to an "anchor baby;" a means to sponsor relatives for citizenship and residency. Representative Ron Paul of Texas, introduced an amendment in March of 2003 to attempt to curb the problem;


Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

This has been languishing in the Subcommittee on the Constitution since May 2003.

In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Even conservative estimates, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 illegal-alien births per year.

But, this is not just a Hispanic problem. South Koreans have created a birth tourism industry. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2002, Korean tour operators fly Korean mothers into Los Angeles and other American cities, there to give birth — in Korean-owned clinics with Korean staff — to an "American."

Something must be done. But, until the Constitution is amended, we are stuck with "anchor babies" as legal constructs to facilitate questionable - perhaps otherwise illegal - entry to the United States.


Anonymous Allan Poindexter said...

This does not require an amendment. The Constitution already provides Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". All that is required is for Congress to modify that rule. An amendment would make it harder to change back but it also makes it harder to get adopted in the first place. In this particular case I suspect an amendment would be very nearly impossible to get ratified. A simple change in the legistlation is far more achievalbe.

7:41 AM  
Blogger Cam said...

True. But, since the Constitution specifically calls out birth as a means of citizenship, I'll bet that the court would strike down any such modification as unconstitutional.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Allan Poindexter said...

Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes you would need an amendment to stop the original baby from becoming a citizen. Congress does not have to let that status confer privilege on all the relatives of the baby to immigrate and/or naturalize. That would considerably reduce the motivation for doing this in the first place. There would still be some motive but not as much. The child would have to reach adulthood before he could even come to the US since the parents could not come along. Also another non-amendment approach would be to bar visas to those who are pregnant and near full term.

8:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home