Born in the U.S.A. (Part II)

The And Rightly So blog commends an op-ed by Colorado's Rep. Tom Tancredo. Tancredo claims that once a baby is born on U.S. soil to an illegal immigrant, the baby's 'entire family gets to cut in line.'

Maybe in twenty-some years they will, but not any time soon. If you've ever seen the process for applying for permanent residency and then citizenship, you'll know that it would be exceedingly difficult for a baby to sponsor anyone -- much less her entire family.

We're talking about all kinds of forms, letters attesting to the applicant's legitimacy, huge amounts of necessary documentation, face-to-face interviews with immigration officials.* If the baby had her last three years of tax returns, that might make it easier. But try explaining the IRS 1040 form to an infant -- I would bet huge amounts of money (which I don't actually have) that you wouldn't get very far.

These babies grow up as Americans, writes Ricardo Vargas, who himself was born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. They have opportunities as citizens that they would not have otherwise -- and that means they're more productive members of society, rather than being marginalized and a burden on society.

Are people coming to the United States just to have a baby who is a U.S. citizen? Sure, it happens. But how frequent is it? Tough to say. Vargas says it's not as big a problem as some think. But others have the view that it is unfair for anyone to do that at all -- the argument being that U.S. citizens have earned the right for their babies to have automatic citizenship, whereas non-citizens have not.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: Even if an immigrant is married to an American, he does not get automatic citizenship. That's just a myth. He must be a lawful permanent resident for at least three years first, and applying for permanent residency takes even more documentation than does the subsequent citizenship application.

By Emily Messner |  March 30, 2006; 12:25 PM ET  | Category:  National Politics
Previous: Born in the U.S.A. (Part I) | Next: Immigration Policies Around the World

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Our dear, innocent, bleeding-heart Emily writes:

"These babies grow up as Americans, writes Ricardo Vargas, who himself was born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. They have opportunities as citizens that they would not have otherwise -- and that means they're more productive members of society, rather than being marginalized and a burden on society."

Wow, I'm shocked that a person born to illegal immigrant parents would think that people born of illegal immigrant parents should be U.S. citizens. Thanks for bringing that counterintuitive point to the table.

Perhaps Mr. Vargas can explain why he should be given all the privilege of U.S. citizenship because his parents committed a crime, while the children of would-be immigrants from, say, India or Nigeria, who do not commit said crime, should suffer for their law-abidingness.

Perhaps Mr. Vargas can also tell us whether he has dual citizenship with the U.S. and Mexico (I suspect he does), and whether that is a good thing for the United States.

Emily, for the 1,093rd time, you're an out of touch media elite.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 12:37 PM

Our dewy-eyed, naive-when-it-suits-her moderator writes:

"Are people coming to the United States just to have a baby who is a U.S. citizen? Sure, it happens. But how frequent is it? Tough to say. Vargas says it's not as big a problem as some think."

Well then, that settles that. Mr. Vargas's parents did it, but Mr. Vargas assures us that it's not a problem, so we can all sleep better at night.

It's *really* frequent. There's even a term for it. End this abuse of our immigration laws, as Ireland and New Zealand has similarly done in recent years.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 12:42 PM

Emily might as well add another disclaimer, since there are LPR waivers, like...

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/Legal%20Assistance%20Home%20Page.nsf/4e83160f563ce6fc852568f90058f0f6/6b502363e97cad6d85256a05005df34a?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=16%2C15%2C4%2C3%2C2%2C7%2C13%2C6#_Section16

===========================================
Naturalization Based Upon Service During Military Hostilities

This is the only basis for naturalization that does not require admission as a LPR except for a 1990 law that authorizes the naturalization of the small remaining group of Filipino war veterans serving during World War II. The military hostilities naturalization provisions also waive the age, residence and physical presence requirements. A servicemember is eligible if he or she served honorably on active duty during any of these periods:

a. World War I (6 April 1917 to 11 November 1918);
b. World War II (1 September 1939 to 31 December 1946);
c. Korea (25 June 1950 to 1 July 1955);
d. Vietnam (28 February 1961 to 15 October 1978);
e. Persian Gulf /Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield (2 August 1990 to 11 April 1991 Executive Order 12, 939, 59 Fed. Reg. 61,231 (29 November 1994).

The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the President to designate service during periods of military hostilities as the basis for naturalization. The Persian Gulf conflict was designated as such a period while World War I and II, Korea, and Vietnam are designated by the express terms of Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US.C. §1440.

Procedure: An applicant for naturalization based upon service during military hostilities must file Form N-426 (Certificate of Military or Naval Service) and Form G-325B (Biographic Form) in addition to the Form N-400 Application for Naturalization. The application must be filed at the Nebraska Military Service Center, regardless of the applicant's residence.
===========================================

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 30, 2006 01:09 PM

In larger border cities, like El Paso, Texas, it is not uncommon for pregnant women to cross the border from Mexico, and then take a taxi to the hospital so they can be admitted to give birth.

The idea that this isn't a 'big enough' problem to worry about could be true in the face of our much bigger immigration problems.

HOWEVER, birthright citizenship totally messes up the proposed 'guest worker' plan, because the idea of a 'guest worker' program is that our 'guests' will return home some day. We aren't likely to require them to take an oath of chastity during their stay here, so some of them will have children.

How is it consistent with a 'guest worker' plan to confer citizenship on the children of the 'guests'?

No one in our esteemed Senate seems to grasp that this is an issue...

Posted by: Virginia Dare | March 30, 2006 01:14 PM

"and that means they're more productive members of society, rather than being marginalized and a burden on society.""

Heh. Really? By the very nature of being children given public schooling, WIC, etc., without their parents being legal citizens paying taxes (instead of being paid-under-the-table illegals), they're a burden on society.

Plus, how many born-here-so-citizens kids marched in support of illegal immigration in LA, marched out of school the other day? Seems like getting an education is less their priority than continuing the coddling of illegals.

Posted by: T | March 30, 2006 01:21 PM

...honestly you've got to question the honesty and intentions of Latinos commenting on the topic of American immigration.

Step back and think for yourself. You're a Mexican woman, say, who cannot legally enter the US. Will probably never be able to enter the country legally...or live or work here legally. If you sneak across the border and have your childen here, your children are US citizens with a birthright that you will never have.

How difficult is this to decide?

Now, even if you are able to come in legally and work here legally because you've gone through the immigration process, you'll do it if you can. For that very reason, because you have gone through the process, and you don't want your children to go through it.

What person in their right mind would pass up giving US citizenship to their children, for free...for no more than the pain of giving birth?

Posted by: common cents | March 30, 2006 01:21 PM

"the argument being that U.S. citizens have earned the right for their babies to have automatic citizenship, whereas non-citizens have not."

Yep.

Posted by: T | March 30, 2006 01:22 PM

Emily:
"We're talking about all kinds of forms, letters attesting to the applicant's legitimacy, huge amounts of necessary documentation, face-to-face interviews with immigration officials.*"

Oh Mercy Me! The oppressive United States requires forms, letters, documentation, interviews, evidence that the person is actually who they say they are! The horror! The horror!

In practice what Tancredo says is completely true. The child gives the parents a legitimate argument for why they deserver permanent legal status (pero mi nino esta un ciudadano!). Five years later, after they are rewarded for illegally crossing the border, they are eligible for naturalization.

Suddenly the flood gates open. Juan y Juanita are citizens after 5 years in virtue of their committing a crime. Now every single immediate relative of Juan y Juanita qualifies for Lawful Permanent Residence in the United States. This includes Juan's parents, Juanita's parents, and all the children under 21 that Juan and Juanita have back in Mexico that their abuelos are taking care of. These qualifications are without numerical
limitations under current immigration policy.

But wait, there's more. Juan y Juanita's unmarried children over the age of 21 get First Preference Family-Based Immigration status.

Or if they can sneak in 3rd or 4th preference, married sons and daughters and siblings of US citizens qualify. So Juan and Juanita really can, eventually, bring the whole clan on up to enjoy the best that American hospitals, schools, and prisons have to offer.

If Juan and Juanita cannot wait the 5 years for citizenship to bring the family in, they can apply for 2nd preference which applies to spouses, dependent children, and unmarried children of Lawaful Permanent Residents.

All this because they crossed the border? You'll hear my dissenting voice in the ballot box.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2006 01:40 PM

The Center for Immigration Studies states the following:

"An estimated one-tenth, or 380,000, of U.S. births in 2002 were to illegal aliens, based on Census data.36 "Mixed families," in which some members (usually children) are American citizens and others are illegal immigrants or some other combination of legal and illegal residents, present a host of challenges to the United States, including determining eligibility for taxpayer-funded public assistance programs.37 "

The "anchor baby phenomenon" benefits are so pronounced that even Mexican families with no plans to immigrate are coming to the US to drop an "anchor baby" for the free medical care and the future options and latitude a certified US citizen in the family gives them. They cross over, have the future meal ticket doumented with a US birth certificate, and cross back to see how things work out in Mexico for them. If they want, the anchor baby gives them preference on immigration privileges into the USA, the anchor baby gives them rights to jobs and the possiblility he or she can sponsor the whole family out of Mexico later, and the kid gets dual citizenship..

It's not just Mexicans doing the scam. Africans, Arabs, Haitians, Jamaicans, Muslim "refugees" and other Arabs on "vacation visas" will show up 7 months pregnant and visit a doctor seeking to induce labor and have a "premee" so they can stay on in the US on welfare and get their permanent residency cards. It is a strong inducment for illegals or those on temp work visas to do their best to create new de facto American citizens so they don't have to go home.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 30, 2006 02:10 PM

Right, Will.

Emily, why don't you just come out and say what we all know to be true: that you support illegal immigration? It couldn't be more obvious.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 02:10 PM

DC Dude, SandyK, Virginia Dare, Chris Ford, etc., etc.:

1. Write your representative and senators to express your will.

2. Bring a case to the Supreme Court to get a decision on the 14th amendment.

3. Boycott any business or establishment you know or suspect of employing or benefiting from illegal labor. If you go to a MacDonald or Burger King and see Hispanics working there, check their status and then leave if they don't have the proper paper. Stop patronizing restaurants since most have illegal cooks/busboys unless they post on their menus otherwise. Don't buy lettuces or veggies from California or Florida since chances are good they were picked by illegals. Stick to midwestern produces like soybeans, corns, etc. Same with most meat products. Eat fish. Not too many illegals in the fish industry. Don't buy houses in any developments you suspect being built by illegals. Make it part of your contracts that your house will only be built by legal residents or citizens. Stay late at work some day and make sure the cleaning crew is legal. If not complain to your boss and your boss's boss. And if they don't stop the practice, seek employment somewhere else.

Do something constructive. It's all within your personal power! After all you are Americans, free citizens of this great land.

Posted by: Borg | March 30, 2006 04:57 PM

But Borg, we are doing something constructive -- we're making our opinions known on this website.

We're also honing our arguments to the point where all the pro-illegal immigration camp can say is things like "If you go to a MacDonald or Burger King and see Hispanics working there, check their status and then leave if they don't have the proper paper"
Immigrates si! Illegales NO!

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 05:09 PM

I expected to see the usual give and take here, and found almost everyone hammering the illegal immigrants. I live in a dusty little border town, so see more of them than most of you-all. They are hard working, quiet people, who don't want to draw attention to themselves for obvoius reasons. They also are much abused, probably because they fear to stand up for themselves. The under-the-counter pay means they get starvation wages. No health care, they live in canyons and so on.
They attractions of living in the US don't apply; because they fear deportation, they don't avail themselves of them.
Remember the Reagan amnesty? The enforcement of that "reform" was to punish the employers who use the illegals. How many prosecutions have there been? Five, maybe? Anyone want to use that tool? Would our business people howl? You tell me.

Posted by: Lemon Grover | March 30, 2006 05:57 PM

Lemon,

Yes, I definitely want prosecution of employers who hire illegals, and I suspect most on these boards would agree.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 06:06 PM

"We're also honing our arguments to the point where all the pro-illegal immigration camp can say is things like "If you go to a MacDonald or Burger King and see Hispanics working there, check their status and then leave if they don't have the proper paper"

LOL, DC Dude! So enforcement is the responsiibility of rergular individual citizens.

I was waiting for the Chris to chime in with the "anchor babies"

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 06:33 PM

Johnnyg:
"the Chris?"

Ahahah, you have just made my day.

/Ford, I don't mean that as an insult, just I think its funny that you are refered to as 'the.'

Posted by: Freedom | March 30, 2006 06:40 PM

that was a typo!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 06:41 PM

Policies can have unintended consequencies and provide incentives to "game" the system.

Why do we provide free health care services to illegal immigrants?

I sure would like free health care.

But I'm a Citizen and here in the US Citizens have to pay their way.

Just my opinion

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 30, 2006 07:01 PM

I would like to point out that the number of illegal immigrants has doubled during W's watch (since 2000).

Why are the laws of this country being applied so selectively? FOP seem to get a pass.

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 30, 2006 07:04 PM

Not spam, just backing up my claim Study Needed On How Illegal Immigrants Impact Taxpayers

While many support immigrants starting a new life in Houston, experts said doing so illegally is costing local taxpayers millions.

About 15 percent of the Harris County Hospital District's budget will help pay for the health care of illegal immigrants this year. That's roughly $120 million.

"I think we ought to be prepared to say the local taxpayers of Harris County should be reimbursed," Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Raddack said.

"We have to realize that they have contributed to the economy for years, and the medical help they receive is precious little," Case de San Juan director Mark Zwick said.

Some Harris County commissioners said they would like a study to analyze how much illegal immigration costs the county annually.

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 30, 2006 07:10 PM

that _is_ a National Security Issue.


not faking a war, so that the president's friends can bet on oil futures.

let's get those priorities straight!


arrest, not impeach the president as well as his joint cheifs and speaker...

swear those hombres in or go to jail with 'em...

.

Posted by: I want them to start arresting those who hire illegals.. | March 30, 2006 09:06 PM

But Borg, we are doing something constructive -- we're making our opinions known on this website.

We're also honing our arguments to the point where all the pro-illegal immigration camp can say is things like "If you go to a MacDonald or Burger King and see Hispanics working there, check their status and then leave if they don't have the proper paper"
Immigrates si! Illegales NO!

Posted by: DC Dude | Mar 30, 2006 5:09:05 PM


But Dude,

While you are honing your arguments for your appearance before the Roberts Court couldn't you at least vote with your hard earned American dollars and not patronage business establishments that break the laws? Clearly as you claim you could tell illegal Mexicans are everywhere you go, you should be able to easily determine which businesses employ them for unjust profiteering.

It's not too much to ask no? Otherwise folks may mistake you for some whining hypocrite. Not to mention you may be accused of doing business with soon to be declared felons which in turn will make you a lawbreaker yourself.

And that would be bad for such noble undertaking you have embarked upon.

Posted by: | March 30, 2006 10:02 PM

Again, look at the weakness of the arguments on the pro-illegal side. It always boils down to strawmen.

Enforcement of immigration laws shouldn't rest on the shoulder of the average citizen, anonymous poster. It's the government's job, and they haven't been doing it.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 30, 2006 10:26 PM

Dude,

My apology for not signing the last post, an oversight I assure you.

Actually I haven't taken side yet. I can still be convinced since I am not so sharp as to the legal and practical points of the debate. You obviously have taken the side of law and order. But the other side also has some very substantial backers, including the president of the United States, who himself comes from a border state. So I can assume he knows something about immigration, no? You would not be suggesting he's just pandering would you? So it can't be all strawmen? Besides you did vote for him yes? Twice you say?

But I am not asking you to enforce immigration laws. That wouldn't be right. Busy man that you are. You don't have to report the illegals, nor arrest them, nor take up arms and put yourself in danger of life and limbs. But you can vote with your dollar si? To make a statement even stronger than some weblogs. After all if these lawbreaking businesses don't get any customers they would not be able to hire anyone let alone illegals. No jobs, no illegals. Voila problem disappears.

Or would that be too inconvenient to your daily life?

Posted by: Borg | March 30, 2006 11:06 PM

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship."


I dont know! This may be enough to tilt me toward amnesty, at least for the fruit and lettuce pickers.

Posted by: Don't mess with my lettuce. | March 30, 2006 11:32 PM

When I used to work for the Feds, we aligned ourselves with Dana Rohrabacher for a particular bill being drafted. He purposely blows a lot of hot air on these types of issues. That puts their side in a better position to at least meet somewhere in the middle.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 30, 2006 11:54 PM

Borgie wrote:
===========================================
DC Dude, SandyK, Virginia Dare, Chris Ford, etc., etc.:

1. Write your representative and senators to express your will.

2. Bring a case to the Supreme Court to get a decision on the 14th amendment.

3. Boycott any business or establishment you know or suspect of employing or benefiting from illegal labor.
===========================================

#3 I already do. If I see "Made in Canada" or "Made in China" labels I make a conscience decision to not buy the item(s). And for construction @ $400 to install a door locally, it isn't immigrant labor!

#1 and #2 the most I can do is protest via mail or online. Been through the boiler room politics with health access, but my health today isn't well enough to get back into it (that's a lot of travel and gladhanding hundreds of miles away; ontop of all the phoning; the file keeping; the newsletters; and plain footwork with surveys).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 12:27 AM

Remember Katrina? Well remember Katrina with Latin gangs intermingling with Hispanic work crews...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0328/p01s02-ussc.html?s=u2

===========================================
In St. Bernard Parish, three members of a Latin American gang were recently arrested for stealing private property, though police did not say what they stole. Though most of the gang crime is in the form of graffiti, law officers worry that members of gangs such as MS-13 will be able to blend into the crowd of Hispanic construction rebuilding crews while trafficking in drugs and committing violent crime.
===========================================

Those lily livered politicos better do the right thing, because come November we'll remember if they vote for the USA or the ILLEGALS -- and it's the US citizens outraged over this issue that actually votes (not 15 year-old kids playing hooky to protest).

Word up, politicos. Be you Democrat or Republican. Middle class America is watching.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 12:37 AM

The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

So this ruling class...this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process.

Posted by: joe | March 31, 2006 01:42 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001330.html

===========================================
Will people want, in any form, a collection of articles, written by professional journalists from a detached and purportedly objective point of view? Or are blogs and podcasts the cutting edge of a new model -- more personalized, more interactive, more opinionated, more communal, less objective?
===========================================

Looks at this blog, and wondering: where's the objectivity of the newspaper journalist?

If the article above is an indication of the mess news services are in (like not addressing inhouse hypocrisy -- from hiring the likes of George Will who was reprimanded how many times for ethics violations, again??), they're going to get sunk by internet reporting (who don't have bottom lines to meet, or pander to ethnic communities for sales).

Newspaper journalists aren't anymore unbiased as the rest of the journalists are online. The only difference is one is getting a salary, while the other maybe be lucky to scrape 2 cents from a GoogleAd.

The MSM just doesn't "get it". The public is sick and tired of being served news by folks who THINK they know better (like just thumbing through some think tank material now makes it right and dandy -- but failing to tell the public where the data came from). The internet readers want the data, and will investigate the associations in an effort to get TRUTHFUL information, not just partisan spin.

Who knows. By 2020 print media maybe dead (as it seems it maybe -- have folks been reading magazines of late? $5+ an issue, with more ads than content now).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 03:50 AM

From the above article:
===========================================
But readers of the good ones (such as the Guardian or the Financial Times of London) ===========================================

Ah, where's the objectivity of that statement? Is WP allowing anyone to be editors now so no one proof reads it for impartial reporting? In case folks don't know: that's a personal opinion, not an objective one, neither.

The Guardian is a socialist newspaper (no one denies it, so it's views will have a deep Left bias). For example, publishing this tripe...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

The Financial Times would make Keynes proud.

So much for newspaper impartiality!!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 04:01 AM

Oh, don't you just love the off-the-record smoozing as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701659.html

One hand proclaiming, "Death to tyrannts! These nativist xenophobes are racists!!" Meanwhile going to bed with one and taking it from either side.

MSM is lost without a compass.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 04:49 AM

Can anyone answer the question of why we aren't doing the enforcement that everyone is talking about? Is it too costly, or is it a matter of policy priorities favoring business more than workers?

Why does Fox want the USto be easy on the illegal immigrants? Does he think that if enough ofhis citizens cross the border and take US jobs at pay higher than what they have the opportunity for in Mexico, that eventually the market forces will force the Mexican businesses to raise their wages? Mexico has labor laws - its the enforcement that is lacking there. We have immigration laws - its the enforcement that is lacking here. Interesting, huh?

Meanwhile the game goes on where Mexicans and other latinos climb into these overcrowded, unventilated, trucks in extreme heat, risking death, arrest, enslavement, and other hazards to get smuggled into the US and find a figurative gold mine in "low wage" (a relative term) work.

Politicians are using the reality that people are putting themselves at risk (and those trying to enforce the laws)in opposition to their own countries laws to try attaining economic goals.

Guest worker programs might be a good faith effort to try cataloging these people and deal with them in a realistic manner, but it will only encourage more illegal immigration unless we can simultaneously stop the inflow.

Posted by: DK | March 31, 2006 05:56 AM

Sandy my favorite sysadmin,

I admit it you lost me this morning with your rants about Kinsley's article. What's your point? Or was it too early in the morning? Immigration issues keep you awake at night? Kinsley is a COLUMNIST, he can say anything he likes short of libel. Besides his article seems faily balanced to me. Maybe you need to read it again. Or is he a bit abstract and cagey for your paygrade? Don't feel put down, I had to look up what sui generis means myself.

As for your avoidance of foreign made goods. Well and good. But then again you play straight into the argument that you and your kind are just plain xenophobes, no? The point is to boycott businesses in American who engage in illegal activity. As for boycotting foreign made goods, well that's another issue completely. Unless you are just plain anti anything foreign....

Posted by: Borg | March 31, 2006 07:10 AM

Borgie.

Maybe you need some coffee this morning, if you don't have a clue about objectivity in reporting. Whoops! Forgot partisans aren't objective to begin with.

Sysadmins/web developers/programmers like to work at night -- for that's when folks like you are having fun with bed bugs, and we can have the servers to ourselves. :evilest grin:

As for me boycotting foreign made goods. I do it for idealogical reasons. I don't support folks who stab us in the back (France and Canada); and I don't buy goods from China, because it steals jobs from home (same goes for textiles from Mexico -- my town used to be the 2nd largest cotton exporter in the world, and our textile mills clothed the South).

So take your xenophobic ideals and eat it, Borgie. Just don't squat the remnants on your head. :D

Oh, and if you can't understand what offal is, then even a pot of army coffee isn't going to help you!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 08:18 AM

DK,

Foxe doesn't care about the peasants. In Mexico and other Latin America countries what matters is land ownership. They don't want squatters on it. Exporting the bodies over our borders keeps them off their precious land. Foxe has no incentive to have factories for a zillion workers, because as a plantation owner type, that means all that money for social welfare. It cuts into his (and his landed gentry supporters) pocketbooks.

So it's a form of gentleman's agreement. We get the cheap labor for our industries, while Foxe and company siphons the cream off their treasury and any other stipend they can get their greedy hands on.

In essence, Foxe and his former elites, did what Castro did. Exporting the undesirables on our shores to keep. Beats murdering them by the thousands.

Thus, no immigration laws with a bite on both sides of the border.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 08:24 AM

Sandy K is a wonderful example of the Ugly American we in evil Canada visualize. You could send her in a cage with the circus so we could see first hand how narrow minded and xenophobic our neighbours can be. Send us that creepy SandyK as she is such a great example of the ugliness that can come out of narrow mindedness and unresolved anger issues. We are just too nice up here send us a bit of yuor mean spirited crankiness and hate for other human beings. Send us SandyK

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | March 31, 2006 09:35 AM

Oh, and don't worry about illegal aliens, yet. Once our southern border is fixed, the illegals will start pouring over onto your border. Then you guys will have to make the same hard decisions (while we snicker, "we told you so!").

I doubt they'd like living in Resolute. Be pretty darn hard to find $$$$$ job when it's -50F below.

BTW, what happened to your Prime Minister again? That's right, he had sticky fingers and had to go bye,bye.

Have a nice day, Canuck. :)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 09:52 AM

For our Ignorant Canadian:

http://www.readersdigest.ca/debate.html?a=v&di=65&printer_version=1

===========================================
Roughly 60 percent of the 23,800 refugee claimants who showed up in Canada in 1998 had either fake identity documents or none at all -- a sure sign that they used smugglers to get here.

According to a 1998 study on the impact of organized crime prepared for the Solicitor-General of Canada, the federal and provincial governments spend up to $400 million a year processing and caring for bogus refugee claimants: Each declared refugee costs us $56,000. This money could be used far more effectively to alleviate the suffering of genuine refugees abroad.

People-smuggling syndicates operate in countries such as Iran, India, China, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Nigeria and Brazil. Canada is a favourite destination because we have the highest acceptance rate of refugees in the world -- up to 70 percent of those who apply, compared to 17 percent for the United States and seven percent in Germany. Canada also has one of the lowest deportation rates for rejected claimants. Says Jonas Widgren: "The Canadian asylum system has been much too liberal."

An illegal immigrant, once he has claimed to be a refugee, cannot be arrested even if he enters Canada unlawfully -- without identification papers, say, or with the help of smugglers. In addition, once the claim is made, he automatically receives welfare, free medical care and legal aid until his case is resolved, a process that can take from two to ten years.
===========================================

Can't wait until the Canadian border issue is fixed as well. Because the RCMP doesn't even know where their terrorists are!!

Oh, and have a good read about immigration in the Great White North. :D

http://www.canadafirst.net/cfirc_in_action/halifax/

Guess Americans aren't the only "xenophobes", got some Canadians with the same viewpoint!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 10:00 AM

Why should they allow anchor babies, these people are INVADERS. What part of overpopulation do you people not understand. There is more to this problem than meets the eye. And if you think we don't need a wall or least a fence, then we need to take the locks off our doors, cause they keep people OUT notin.

Posted by: Vic Bailey | March 31, 2006 10:05 AM

Democrats are divided over the issue as well. So much, it may even lose the labor vote...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001981.html

Not like the internet is something illegals can rally around for support (and give monies on). So if the middle class rejects the Democratic proposal, might as well close the Democrat party as the only thing left is some illegals (who are traditionalists themselves, and vote Republican eventually -- they're anti-gay; Catholic faithful; and don't have the same ideas of women equality).

Talking about taking 2 steps forward and 2 steps backward!

Never cater to a group by ethnicity or race, as it will backfire. Black Americans are learning this REAL well.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 31, 2006 10:24 AM

The difference between Americans and Canadians is that Americans don't care what Canadians think.

Posted by: | March 31, 2006 10:34 AM

Interesting to watch all these heads exploding as people attempt to dress up xenophobic bile in the cloth of fiscal responsibility.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigrants cost the US economy about $10 billion per year; the cost of an amnesty for people currently in the US illegaly would be aound $28 billion (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Costs).

A Columbia University study pegs the cost of the three years of war with Iraq at something in the neighbourhood of $357 billion.

(For those of you challenged by the math: illegals cost you, personally, about $30 bucks a year. The illegal war has so far cost you a little over a grand.)

What this country spent in about 4 months in Iraq could legitimize every illegal alien in this country. Or, it could have skipped Iraq altogether and paid for the illegals annually for the next 35 years.

Let's face it: if the issue for people posting here was things that hurt America and its economy, they'd be posting about the Iraq war, or budget pork, or any one of the other real monetary sinkholes. This is about people who don't wanting any more brown people around, making them nervous and bringing down property values.

So much for poetry, eh?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Posted by: byoolin | March 31, 2006 10:36 AM

Posted by: byoolin | March 31, 2006 10:37 AM

Here an article from that center of liberalism, Berkeley, outlining the effects of illegal immigrants on the city of Austin and how they are exploited by the city and the corporations to the detriment of Americans:
http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/i9news/illegalfuelaustin12599.html

Posted by: Sully | March 31, 2006 11:11 AM

The kernel of the question seems to be, should all newborns in the U.S. receive unqualified citizenship?

When the constitution was written to set up this outcome, it was a fair assumption that anyone arriving to these shores to take up residence was seriously separating themselve from their native country. The commitment of time and expense to cross the ocean was a pretty good demonstration of that. There were occasional charges of divided loyalties in our emergent history, but very little of that after loyalists to the King did the right thing and moved up to Canada.

Today, transportation technology is different and cheaper, and it takes virtually no commitment to land in this country, especially from a border state. Also, with Mexico, the newborn of Mexicans birthed in the U.S. are awarded dual citizenship privileges; that is, all their options possible.

Taking the sentimentality out of the issue, times and circumstances are changed, and these lead to different interpretations of situations. It would be sensible to put qualifications on the citizenship of newborns parented by aliens. Exactly how these would be devised and defined is another debate, but there is some solution that is more appropriate than automatic full citizenship based on birthplace alone. Perhaps a starting point would be for the individual at age 21 to renounce all but one claim if they desired to be a U.S. citizen.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 31, 2006 11:32 AM

Joe writes: "The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

So this ruling class...this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process."

Joe is absolutely correct, unfortunately. The problem is that America's blacks, the Reagan Democrats, the tidy middle class and religious of Republican middle America, the multi-culti lovin' PC yuppie liberal who never dreamed his job would be shipped to Bangalore ---

are still not yet aware a permanent Ruling Class exists, and worse, it is largely unaccountable to the voters. And even worse, is not even really American in nature but transnational..

The elites now run both Parties, and both sets of leadership are committed to NAFTA, outsourcing, globalization, and giving up portions of our political, financial, and economic sovereignity to internationalism (borderless nations allowing free flow of labor and capital - with the bulk of profits reserved for, and laws of governance set by international elites)

It will take another FDR-level Revolution to stop this diminishing of America for the enrichment of a few. I'd have said a "Reagan Revolution" a few years back, but it is pretty clear now the elites own the Republicans as much as they owned the Democrats previously.

**********************

SpeakoutforCanadianEffetism:

So sad. At one point, Canada was a civilized, yet manly nation. Now it is run by the PC-driven deballed men, scolding lefty femmenazis, and gay elites - mostly hailing from the Toronto and Montreal metropolitan areas, with a healthy smattering of BC aging hippies.

But much of Canada is actually normal. In the Maritimes and out West. So Canada may have hope if the men around Vancouver and back East grow some testicles back....though obviously it's a little late for SpeakOutForEffeteCanadians.

I have no problem buying Canadian stuff. They supported our Afghan intervention, though the effetes are now trying to screw their own troops in prosecutions like they did with the Maple Leaf men who still had some testosterone who went to Somalia. Given what's left of the Canadian military is engaged in "peacekeeping" and Afganistan...about all that was left when Iraq started was two plump female corporals and a tank with broken treads they offered to drive to the USA in a logging truck for repairs, a few obsolete leaking subs the Brits gave them, and a few old jets (the Singaporean AF is larger, more modern, and has more & better pilots than the whole of Canada now does).

Canada is now so effete with people like SpeakOutForEffeteCanadians that their boys are afraid to play hockey and they have to import East Europeans to play in their leagues, get pummeled by any country with ice to skate on at the Olympics...and their highest future Olympic hopes are now with male figure skaters, ice dancers.

And a guaranteed gold medal, if Muslim boot-licking on ice becomes a sport in 2010.

Canada has gone so gay and craven, that they have passed laws making criticizing their effeminate males, their Muslim flood, the minority thugs behind the Toronto and Montreal crime waves into "Forbidden speech! Hate crime!" correctness to shield themselves from the sorry truth of the testosterone-free Canada running the country. Now there is a little hope with the conservatives and Westerners that the deballed, gay and feminist dominated East may permitted to get their nuts back...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 31, 2006 11:34 AM

Regarding dual citizenship, I meant to add the thought that it is more than a symbolic gesture. A certain number of devious wealthy people actually purchase another citizenship in an attempt to escape the general requirement that U.S. citizens pay income tax on whatever they earn even if they live in another country.

Which brings us to another curious issue: I wonder what percentage of Latinos with naturalized American citizenship, subsequently retiring in a Latin country, abide by the law and continue to pay income taxes to the U.S.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 31, 2006 11:39 AM

Byoolin,
That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. And I am against the war in Iraq.

If you want to quote addages, here's another: Two wrongs don't make a right. For that matter, they don't justify illegal immigrants and your argument does nothing to address the real problems of illegal immigration and their impacts on this country. The issue would still exist. Not to mention the fact tat currently, we aren't even paying for the war in Iraq. We ARE paying paying for illegal immigrants. Finally, your argument is flawed in that making illegals legal would have dire consequences. They would lose their appeal. They would no longer be able to legally work for less illegal wages. Their income would be taxed and the small amounts they work for probably wouldn't cut it. Employers would have to pay taxes as well as possibly supply insurance etc. Legitimizing them as you suggest would simply increase illegal immigration AND increase our national level of unemployed, taking even more money out of welfare etc.

Posted by: Freedom | March 31, 2006 11:49 AM

DK asks:

"Why does Fox want the US to be easy on the illegal immigrants? Does he think that if enough of his citizens cross the border and take US jobs at pay higher than what they have the opportunity for in Mexico, that eventually the market forces will force the Mexican businesses to raise their wages?"

I think there are two simple reasons:

First, he gets to avoid fixing the social and economic problems in Mexico that lead to such a large number of impoverished people. He can simply send them over the border to work here (note the absence of educated middle or upper class illegal immigrants).

Second, the infusion of hard currency dollars from U.S. wages into the Mexican economy coming from workers sending their earnings home benefits the economy there.

So, on balance, it looks to the Mexican voters that he's doing a great job when in fact their country is in shambles.

And to byoolin: That inscription you quote from the Statue of Liberty was donated by France...seems like a liberal immigration policy has worked out well for them recently, no?

Posted by: Buck | March 31, 2006 12:56 PM

Byoolin-

Where were you when we debated paying for the Iraq War? (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/cost_of_war.html)

I would counter your quote of Lazarus' poem with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt (it's on Lou Dobbs website)

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."


Now my point-

After watching the recent demonstrations by these illegal immigrants, with their Mexican flags waving proudly, and this post from El Naco,

"Why do certain people in the US feel that the American lifestyle is their exclusive province? Why do certain Americans feel that they own American jobs?"

it's clear to me that they do not want to be American, they just want an American paycheck. Now, if anyone here can give me reasons I can take back to the American Legion and the VFW that will convince them that amnesty is a good thing for America, I'm willing to listen. But I haven't heard it yet.

Posted by: wiccan | March 31, 2006 01:10 PM

Buck,
I may be mistaken but I believe you are wrong on that inscription being donated by France. The statue was. The Inscription isn't even on the statue, I believe. Instead, it was inscribed in 1903, 20 years after it was written by Emma Lazarus, who won a contest with a New York Paper to create a poem for the statue. I believe the poem is 100% American. May be wrong though.

Posted by: Freedom | March 31, 2006 01:27 PM

I stand corrected. I meant to say the statue was donated by France.

Posted by: Buck | March 31, 2006 01:40 PM

dear God...

"Let's face it: if the issue for people posting here was things that hurt America and its economy, they'd be posting about the Iraq war, or budget pork, or any one of the other real monetary sinkholes. This is about people who don't wanting any more brown people around, making them nervous and bringing down property values.

So much for poetry, eh?"


Now I'm convinced that people who believe that illegal immigrants should be tolerated are willing to engage in any possible desperate argumentative technique they can find.

Do ANYTHING but argue the point, please.

Call us racists, "xenophobes", people who hate Latinos...say we should talk about Iraq, the economy, globalization, the global war on terror, anything else but illegal immigration. Please. Suggest again that we should do anything but argue the point.

Cause you can't win on the point.

It is ILLEGAL immigration. And we are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

Close your eyes and duck, cover your ears...but you cannot avoid that fact.

Nor can you avoid the fact that these people are career criminals. Same as those who hire them.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:04 PM

...re newborns automatically receiving citizenship, at least we're talking about US immigration and citizenship law.

This implies concern for the law.

Notice how so many are concerned about someone else obeying the law and respecting their rights, when they are related to a US citizen.

See how important US citizenship is?

Now, LET'S JUST GIVE IT TO ANYONE WHO HAS SNUCK INTO THE COUNTRY OR HAS OVERSTAYED THEIR VISA.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:06 PM

....on the other hand, the government giveth, and the governmnet can taketh away.

Just because you are born here doesn't mean that you cannot "un-become" a US citizen.

and even if you *are* a US citizen, that doesn't mean you can stay here.

Or that you can enjoy your rights, unfettered.

Still

it is one thing to be in the US and working, even if illegally

yet another to be a US citizen

I would rather be in the US and working illegally, than to be a US citizen in Angola.

I can think of 5,000 places on the planet which I would trade my US citizenship not to be in.

Or, my US citizenship to remain in.

Yet, still, I would not argue that US citizenship is not important, and, that is *is* important, in the same breath.

Nor would I do the same about abiding by the law.

That is what pro-illegals are doing. And they are at best making an economic argument in support of widespread criminal activity. I am positively sure the Mexican Mafia can do the same thing.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:11 PM

"Legitimizing them as you suggest would simply increase illegal immigration AND increase our national level of unemployed, taking even more money out of welfare etc"


gee, there is so much to say against amnesty or changing the immigration laws to favor low-income unskilled immigrants, especially undocumented ones, that I hardly know where to start!!!!

Thankfully the US government has said it all for me.

And in fact they are being reminded why, right now, by organized labor.

We do not want an open border to allow anyone who wants to come to the US, to come here and take advantage of our system. There are several dozen reasons why not. That is why we have immigration laws in the first place. It's that simple.

But, it is hard to convince the criminal mind of the reasons why the law should be obeyed. The law is *such* an annoyance, unless it works in their favor, and as such, annoying stupid laws should be ignored.

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:15 PM

last but not least

far from least

the have-nots will argue all day long about why those that have, should give to those who have not.

Can you imagine why?

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:16 PM

last but not least

far from least

the have-nots will argue all day long about why those that have, should give to those who have not.

Can you imagine why?

Posted by: cc | March 31, 2006 02:19 PM

I laugh at all the economists who have to twist themselves into a pretzel to argue that the tidal wave of illegals is not depressing American wages. "All that stuff you learned in econ 101, well, never mind" Delfi today announced they want to lower wages and benefits for their hourly workers from the mid $20 range to $10. What do you want to bet that in a couple of years they'll be whining that they can't find Americans to do these jobs, they need more guest workers. Once all of the illegals are legalised they can move up the job ladder depressing wages as they go. Of course the farmers, restaurant owners and builders aren't going to suddenly want to compete for these workers and have to pay higher wages, benefits and maybe offer better working conditions. They'll just higher the next wave of illegals who are sure to flood across the border. Only one thing is certain and that is that any employer sanctions that come out of any of these bills will not be enforced. Our ecconomy cannot do without these workers, "don't you know".

Posted by: Mark | March 31, 2006 02:38 PM

I guess this is what W meant by an "owner's society".

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 31, 2006 08:42 PM

Ironically the Democratic leadership is on the same bandwagon as "W".

Are these politicos listening to the American voter? Doesn't look like it, they seem more interested in stuffing their pockets and getting their egos brushed.

But voters will remember come November who wants to defend the USA from lawbreakers, or not.

This is akin to adopting laws to make pedophilia a right. >:(

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | April 1, 2006 01:38 PM

Excellent article for both sides to read (some history on how this "guest worker" idealogy began)...

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28172

===========================================
In 1964, liberal reformers and labor activists succeeded in persuading the Democratic Congress to abolish the hated Bracero program, which brought in low-wage guest workers from Mexico to labor as serfs in the U.S. Like slavery and contract labor ("coolie labor"), the Bracero program violated a basic principle of American society: There shall not be a two-tier labor market. Employers must not be allowed to pit indentured servants or slaves with no rights, or limited rights, against citizen-workers on American soil.
===========================================

It's sad that history likes to repeat itself, over and over and over..........

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | April 1, 2006 01:45 PM

More on the Bracero program...

http://www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html

===========================================
Mexican peasants were hard-working, highly skilled agricultural laborers. Yet, despite the fact that two million peasants lost their lives in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the government failed to provide them the resources needed to improve their lives. By the late thirties, when the crop fields began yielding insufficient harvest and employment became scarce, the peasant was forced to look for other means of survival.

The occurrence of this grave situation coincided with the emergence of a demand in manual labor in the U.S. brought about by World War II. On August 4, 1942, the U.S. and the Mexican government instituted the Bracero program. Thousands of impoverished Mexicans abandoned their rural communities and headed north to work as braceros.

The majority of the braceros were experienced farm laborers who came from places such as "la Comarca Lagunera," Coahuila, and other important agricultural regions of México. They stopped working their land and growing food for their families with the illusion that they would be able to earn a vast amount of money on the other side of the border.
===========================================

Thus, began our troubles with this illegal immigration, and the whole "guest worker" ideal.

We can't afford giving away jobs to a country that won't reform itself. And American labor most NEVER be dependent on foreign labor -- that dependence can undermine the security of the USA.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | April 1, 2006 01:52 PM

According to Chris Ford the world would be a better place if there were more testosterone. Please send poor Chris some testosterone, he needs it, he loves it and he thinks the world runs on it.
Look at his hate and xenophobia. Chris can be linked directly by DNA to the Klan. He hates women, gays, anything that doesn't have balls. Let's leave this poor ball loving testosteron loving, Klan loving little wimp of a man. He is to be pitied more than hated. If anyone has a ball to spare please consider Chris' plight. In his world there would be balls everywhere and everyone would be full of testosteron.

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | April 4, 2006 11:49 AM

Reading about all these illegal invaders of American shores has left me wondering what the Native Americans, now neatly coralled in to reservations thought of the ancestors of so many American citizens... or perhaps the Hawaiians who found their monarchy overthrown by the United States, their Queen first arested then exiled to new England?

Posted by: Sandbear | April 27, 2006 04:45 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.