With his illegal amnesty action, Barack Obama is predicted to bestow as much as $1.7 BILLION on illegal aliens over the next decade, mostly in the form of earned income tax credits, which in some cases “returns” more money to a recipient than the person ever paid in taxes (if any).
If that’s not bad enough, the head of the IRS has confirmed that illegal aliens who benefit from Obama’s illegal “amnesty” program by obtaining Social Security numbers will be allowed to file tax returns going back years, which may net an illegal alien family as much as $35,000 in one fell swoop, emphasis on fell (at least for the citizens and legal immigrants who paid the taxes that are being redistributed to people who have no legal or moral right to be in our country in the first place, much less to collect a tax “return”).
Another issue in the news lately is birthright citizenship. Federal agents have busted criminals who facilitate the entry into the U.S. of pregnant Chinese women. They bring women here to give birth so that their newborns will be U.S. citizens, even though it’s debatable whether or not these children actually deserve U.S. citizenship, especially because their mothers go home as soon as possible, taking the children with them.
In no way were these women ever permanent residents of the U.S. or even persons who have established any kind of legal “residence” or “domicile” here, which seems to be at least one condition delineated by U.S. law and SCOTUS rulings.
The U.S. is out of step with most countries with regard to birthright citizenship which in this country is apparently de facto law (meaning no law at all): [emphasis added to quotes]
The overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. Over the past few decades, many countries that once did so … have repealed those policies. Other countries are considering changes.
In the United States, both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at narrowing the application of the Citizenship Clause. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation what would limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legally resident aliens, and similar bills have been introduced by other legislators in every Congress since. The … [111th] Congress saw the introduction by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) of the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009,” which … [had] nearly 100 sponsors … [but sadly did not pass].
The issue of “birthright” citizenship has come up in nearly every recent Congress, with Senator David Vitter being merely the latest official to attempt to codify that U.S.-born offspring of people who are not citizens or even legal residents of the U.S. should not be granted U.S. citizenship. The American people are overwhelmingly against birthright citizenship, especially for illegal aliens, as well as amnesty for illegal aliens.
Cities along the U.S. border with Mexico find themselves inundated with pregnant women who cross the border specifically to give birth here, hoping that their “anchor babies” will provide them with a ticket to legal entry, as well as to social welfare benefits.
Note: birthright citizenship is not natural born citizenship, although many confuse the concept of citizen at birth with natural born citizenship. The latter differs in that no law passed by Congress (such as the Nationality Act of 1940) can confer natural born citizenship, which, being natural, merely is.
Natural born citizenship, of course, means having been born within the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents.
Contrary to what many believe, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution defined simple citizenship, not natural born citizenship. How do we know? Read the pertinent sentence:
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.
Because that sentence refers to naturalized citizens in the same breath as born citizens, then obviously the amendment does not modify the definition of natural born citizenship, because naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens.
Note that one who is born within the U.S. becomes a citizen only so long as the person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
How do naturalized citizens become “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? By renouncing any allegiance to their birth countries.
It follows, then, that anyone who is born within the U.S. does not become a citizen if that person is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and is instead subject to the jurisdiction of another country, such as the home country of his or her non-U.S.-citizen parents, especially if those parents are mere tourists or illegal aliens.
Such a child does not renounce the foreign allegiance at birth, nor do the parents. How, then, does the child become a U.S. citizen while subject to the jurisdiction of another country?
If naturalized citizens must renounce other citizenships, then why should “anchor babies”, who are citizens (or nationals) of other countries, be allowed to become U.S. citizens without being held to the same standard as those who naturalize?
All of the above was an inspiration to look further into the issue of how Mexico (from which many illegal aliens come) treats immigrants and illegal aliens within its own borders:
Mexico has a unique citizenship policy in that the country’s constitution grants automatic nationality to anyone born in Mexico, but not automatic citizenship. This is true even of children born to Mexican citizens. When a Mexican reaches the age of 18, they then acquire citizenship.
Mexican government officials with whom [the author] spoke were uncertain how often their country grants nationality or citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. The effort Mexico makes to discourage immigration indicates that this may be a rare occurrence.
For example, the Mexican Constitution, among other things, allows the government to expel any immigrant for any reason without due process. When combined with the protected constitutional right of making a citizen’s arrest, which allows “any person” to detain a suspected criminal and his accomplices who are caught violating a law, it is clear living in Mexico illegally is not easy.
The constitution also severely limits the property rights of immigrants and requires immigrants to get permission from the government to own land; even if permission is granted, the immigrant can never own land within 100 kilometers of land borders nor land within 50 kilometers of the coasts.
An immigrant wishing to change these rules will have difficulty as the Mexican Constitution states that only citizens are entitled to participate in Mexico’s political affairs.
Even with Mexico’s form of birthright citizenship, any child born to illegal immigrants or even legal immigrants in Mexico is barred from becoming president of Mexico; not only must the Mexican president be born in Mexico, but so must at least one of his parents.
While Mexico may grant citizenship to children born to aliens, the nation’s constitution clearly imputes a second-class status on children of immigrants.
Here is another quote from the article linked above that is bound to raise some hackles among U.S. citizens:
[I]n its recent amicus brief to the U.S. District Court overseeing the injunction hearing on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill S.B. 1070, the government of Mexico refers to Mexican illegal aliens as “its people” and “its citizens.” This is not a new perspective.
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox appointed one Juan Hernandez to head a governmental agency called the Institute for Mexicans Abroad. According to Mr. Hernandez’s own website, the agency’s principal objective is to “serve and dignify the 24 million whom President Fox has called heroes — the countrymen who live in foreign lands.”
Mr. Hernandez explains: “We are betting on that the Mexican-American population in the United States…will think ‘Mexico first’ … But now I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”
Mexico first? Unto the seventh generation and beyond?!!
And we are supposed to be on board with Obama illegally giving these illegal aliens Social Security numbers so that they can take monies and benefits that rightfully belong to U.S. citizens? Even worse, so that they can and will illegally vote in our elections (as many already do)?
Imagine the gall of a country that files an amicus brief in our courts, arguing in favor of its “citizens“, millions of whom are in violation of our laws and sovereignty, when that same country does not allow any non-citizens to participate in its own politics.
It is worth noting that Barack Obama–who was admittedly a British subject at birth, later a Kenyan citizen, and still later an Indonesian citizen–had a foreign-citizen father who was never a permanent resident of the U.S. (That’s if we take him at his word as to who his parents were.)
It is not known if Obama ever renounced any of his foreign citizenships.