Thread: In Congress, a harder line on illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON – The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.

In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.

Such a hardened approach — and the rhetoric certain to accompany it — should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.

Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.

There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants. Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status.

House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.

Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.

President Barack Obama could be a wild card.

He'll have at his disposal his veto power should a bill denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants make it to his desk. But Obama also has made cracking down on employers a key part of his administration's immigration enforcement tactics.

Hispanic voters and their allies will look for Obama to broker a deal on immigration as he did on tax cuts and health care. After the Dream Act failed in the Senate this month, Obama said his administration would not give up on the measure. "At a minimum we should be able to get Dream done. So I'm going to go back at it," he said.

The president has taken heavy hits in Spanish-language and ethnic media for failing to keep his promise to address immigration promptly and taking it off the agenda last summer. His administration's continued deportations of immigrants — a record 393,000 in the 2010 fiscal year — have also made tenuous his relationship with Hispanic voters.

John Morton, who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a recent conference call that there are no plans to change the agency's enforcement tactics, which are focused on immigrants who commit crimes but also have led to detaining and deporting many immigrants who have not committed crimes.

The agency also will continue to expand Secure Communities, the program that allows immigration officials to check fingerprints of all people booked into jail to see if they are in the country illegally. Both illegal immigrants and residents can end up being deported under the program, which the Homeland Security Department hopes to expand nationwide by 2013.

Many of those attending a recent gathering of conservative Hispanics in Washington warned that another round of tough laws surrounded by ugly anti-immigrant discussions could doom the GOP's 2012 chances.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible 2012 candidate, cited Meg Whitman's failed gubernatorial bid in California despite her high spending. When 22 percent of the electorate is Latino, candidates can't win without a vigorous presence in the Hispanic community and a "message that is understandable and involves respect," Gingrich said. Even so, Gingrich was unwilling to call on his fellow Republican senators to drop their opposition to the Dream Act, saying the legislation should not have been considered without giving lawmakers a chance to amend it.

The next Congress will be populated with many newcomers elected on a platform of tougher immigration enforcement. They'll have ready ears in Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who will chair the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who is expected to chair the committee's immigration subcommittee.

That's a recipe for more measures aimed at immigration enforcement, including requiring businesses to use E-Verify rather than eyeballing paper documents to check workers' citizenship and legal residency status.

"I've already told the business community it's going to happen," said Beto Cardenas, executive counsel to Americans for Immigration Reform, a coalition of business leaders who support overhauling immigration laws. Changes to immigration law contained in appropriations and authorization bills, where immigration enforcement hawks are likely to tuck some measures, would also be tough to reject.

But more controversial measures such as attempts to deny citizenship to children of people who are in the U.S. without permission could be tempered by GOP leaders aware of the need to curry more favor with Hispanic voters.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/...tion_what_next

Mon Jan 3, 3:11 pm ET
14 states may target birthright citizenship
By Liz Goodwin

Arizona state politicians will introduce model legislation this week to encourage states to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Lawmakers in at least 14 states have said they are committed to passing the legislation targeting birthright citizenship. Arizona's anti-illegal-immigrant bill, SB-1070, was also based on model legislation that could be easily copied by states, and at least seven states are likely to pass bills similar to the first Arizona immigration overhaul this year, according to one analysis by an immigrants rights group.

Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce will unveil the bill Jan. 5 in Washington, D.C., the Arizona Capital Times reports. The paper says lawmakers in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah have said they want to introduce similar legislation this year.

Pearce argues that the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed U.S. slaves, and that it was never meant to apply to the children of foreigners. A Phoenix New Times writer, however, argues that lawmakers who originally passed the amendment took into account the cases of children of Chinese immigrants in California as well as children of gypsies when drafting the measure. A 19th-century Supreme Court precedent also backs that interpretation, though no Supreme Court case has yet dealt with the issue of offspring of illegal immigrant parents.

The amendment states: "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."

Ali Noorani of the immigrant-rights group the National Immigration Forum told The Lookout that he believes leaders in more states will try to counter the thrust of the birthright initiative by adopting resolutions that eschew state laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Religious and political leaders in Utah recently signed a compact advocating for a "humane" approach to immigration,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...N0YXRlc21heXQ-


The federal citizens created under section One of the 14th Amendment are subject to the legislative power of the national congress, even if they do not reside in the District of Columbia.

Those subject to the citizenship of the 14th Amendment are not what is considered citizens under the Statute of 1776 (Declaration of Independence), when congress by amendment creates a citizenry, congress has the ability to regulate that citizenry in any way they chose, court ruling follows:

"It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self- preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659.

This is a long time overdue. Many other countries do not grant you citizenship at birth unless a parent is already a citizen. Put this into law and it will reduce the number of border jumpers.

No - I think that the USA is the ONLY one... and the Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves at the end of the Civil War, not create the nightmare that it has become.

I've always said that it makes no sense to me how a person can benefit from an action that is illegal. It court (from what I've heard) it called fruit from the poisonous tree. This law needs to be changed to reflect automatic citizenship to those born from legal US residence.

I agree with you all the way!

Originally Posted by boopster

Countries in general have been overcome with illegal immigrants and can no longer deal with the monetary responsibilities. As a born US citizen I personally feel that this government has discriminated against me by giving free medical (+ other amenities) to those who are in this country illegally. Should an American citizen be burdened with medical bills and taxes while those who have broken the law don't have those burdens? Heck NO! How many American citizens go without medical care because they cannot afford it - the answer is too many! I have seen non-english speaking people come into the ER with a mosquito bite, poison ivy or a cold while an American citizen can't afford the co-pay to make a doctor's office visit. Our president declares that we (American citizens) are all equal but he and his people are more equal if you base in on their medical coverage....and those in this country illegally are also more equal because they can get medical care in an ER at no cost to themselves...but at a cost to the American tax payers. It's time for American to take care of Americans BEFORE they take care of the world!

Originally Posted by YNKYH8R

I've always said that it makes no sense to me how a person can benefit from an action that is illegal. It court (from what I've heard) it called fruit from the poisonous tree. This law needs to be changed to reflect automatic citizenship to those born from legal US residence.

See, I don't think it's just a push for "political correctness" that certain government members wish to call Illegal Aliens, "Undocumented citizens". I think it's also on their agenda to make these "illegals", legal. If they are no longer "Illegals", then they would not be benefiting from an "Illegal" action, thus allowing the attainment of legal citizenship for the "undocumented aliens". The "undocumented" will no longer fit the description of "illegal", therefore, they are entitled to it's benefits.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

See, I don't think it's just a push for "political correctness" that certain government members wish to call Illegal Aliens, "Undocumented citizens". I think it's also on their agenda to make these "illegals", legal. If they are no longer "Illegals", then they would not be benefiting from an "Illegal" action, thus allowing the attainment of legal citizenship for the "undocumented aliens". The "undocumented" will no longer fit the description of "illegal", therefore, they are entitled to it's benefits.

I completely understand. On FoxNews they were talking about changeing the term. I say the term illegal alien refers to the action they take not the person. It's basiclly calling a spade a spade.