Key components of any immigration reform: An end to birthright citizenship and family reunification

By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger
January 18, 2013

There are rumblings in Washington to the effect that the Obama administration is going to put forward an immigration reform package.

One element that is absolutely crucial to such a reform is an end to birthright citizenship.

You can’t have a comprehensive immigration policy if non-citizens can win citizenship for their children by a mere accident of birth.

If an American couple has a child in Paris, they don’t expect that child to be granted French citizenship. The same should hold in reverse.

Congressman Stephen King has put in a bill doing exactly that. Here’s the Californians for Population Stabilization entry on that:

The Birthright Citizenship Act by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens. HR 140 would establish that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment awards birthright citizenship only if one of the parents is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien (green card holder) in the United States; or (3) an alien on active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Our current policy encourages women to enter the United States illegally so that they can gain citizenship for these "anchor babies." The DHS is reluctant to deport the illegal alien parents of a child born here.

Taxpayers end up with the bill for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child’s citizenship status. Virtually every other developed nation requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.

Republicans really need to focus on pushing this. They need to oppose family reunification as well.

As you can see in this piece by the mayor of Los Angeles, the Democrats are demanding that family reunification be part of any amnesty.

These are the same people who insist that immigration brings us lots of younger workers that we need to fuel our economy. Then they turn around and demand these workers be permitted to bring in aging relatives to help bankrupt our social-service and health-care systems.

By the way, note the first sentence of that piece by Antonio Villaraigosa: "It was March of 2006. On that afternoon over one million undocumented immigrants marched on Los Angeles City Hall."

Ask yourself who was president on that day.

You got it: The worst president in modern history.

Republicans who vote for George W. Bush expected him to enforce the laws here at home. Instead he went on a lot of liberal nation-building adventures overseas and ignored the borders. That’s in keeping with the view of fellow "neo" (i.e. non)conservative Bill Kristol, who in this column denounced as "yahoos" the Republicans who want to limit immigration.

Then for good measure, Bush screwed up the economy so bad that a Democrat cruised to the oval office.

And now that Democrat has Republicans in a corner on immigration reform. if he simply does nothing, those millions of illegals will stay here anyway.

If they play their cards right, however, they could at least get rid of birthright citizenship and family reunification.

Combine that with a demand for strict enforcement and we might finally started unraveling the mess made by Bush and his father – who famously failed to enforce the 1986 immigration law.

Instead we’re getting the weak sort of "reform" offered by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, an amnesty that dare not speak its name.

Here’s what Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies says of Rubio’s plan:

You know what would be new? If a politician came out and said, "Look, folks, I don’t like it any more than you, but we screwed the pooch for so long we’re stuck with no other options — we need to eat the crap sandwich of amnesty and try to make a fresh start of this national sovereignty thing." I don’t believe that to be the case, but it would be by far the most convincing case for amnesty I’ve heard.

Krikorian is probably right about the willing ness of the Republicans to eat that "crap sandwich." The least they can do is to put a nice topping on it before swallowing.