Pew: 8% of American births to illegals?

posted at 9:55 pm on August 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Hmmmm.  With some conservatives broaching the possibility of a Constitutional amendment to modify the 14th Amendment to clarify birthright citizenship as requiring at least one parent to be either a citizen or a legal immigrant, a chorus of voices has insisted that the problem of anchor babies doesn’t exist anyway, at least not significantly enough to make it a focus of political action.  However, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center claim that births from illegals amounts to 8% of all American births does tend to put the question in a whole new context:

One in twelve babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants, according to a new study, a statistic that could inflame the debate over birthright citizenship.

Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center’s report.

“Unauthorized immigrants are younger than the rest of the population, are more likely to be married and have higher fertility rates than the rest of the population,” said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew in Washington, D.C.

The report, based on Census Bureau data and analysis of demographic characteristics of the undocumented population, also found that the lion’s share, or 79%, of the 5.1 million children of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. in 2009 were born in the U.S. and therefore citizens.

How many births did the US have in 2008?  That year actually showed a decline … to 4,247,000, down from 4.3 million the year before.  That means the US had around 339,760 births from illegal immigrants in 2008 alone.  Add in Mom and Dad, and suddenly we have close to a million illegal immigrants that the US would have a mighty difficult time deporting — in one year.

If 79% of 5.1 million children are birthright citizens, that makes just over 4 million.  If we again add in just one parent (statistically, probably slightly less, as some families will have only one parent and more than one child), that’s eight million people that can’t be deported.  If we’re adding 340,000 children a year to that total, it’s going to severely complicate enforcement of immigration law no matter what happens in Congress … assuming Congress ever does anything about immigration enforcement.

One way or another, the question of the nature of citizenship will have to get answered.  However, the legal issue may not be as unresolvable as some think.  The 14th Amendment makes one condition in its language: “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.”  So far as I know, that has led courts to consider children born of legal immigrants citizens of the US, since they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of America and its laws. A case can be made that the clause could restrict birthright citizenship to only those legally in the country — and it would certainly be easier to float a test case with a deportation order than it would be to amend the Constitution.  Why not let the courts have a crack at it first?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 12:41 AM

hey amigo, tell me, do you have your surname in a logo shown conspicuously on the back window of your 28 year old Chevy?

Towash on August 12, 2010 at 12:54 AM

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Your naive dhimmitude is duly noted

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 12:55 AM

Question…do illegals have as many abortions as legals in this country?

Electrongod on August 11, 2010 at 10:04 PM
It is highly unlikely, given that the majority of illegals in this country hail from Mexico. According to the CIA’s The World Factbook, Mexico is 76.5% Roman Catholic. In my opinion they are, to their credit, very family-oriented people as well, in comparison to modern-day Americans as a whole.

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Hispanics have abortions at twice the rate of whites but less than blacks. Here is one article but I have seen stats similiar to this several other places.

mrsmwp on August 12, 2010 at 1:03 AM

How about instead of coming in here on your high-horse, you suggest a solution. Perhaps a guest-worker program. Perhaps ending gov’t funding of illegals (welfare and such…)

You want to work within a socialist system and turn a blind eye to illegal migration… oh, my…

MeatHeadinCA on August 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Two great ideas. We only grant 5000 or so low-skilled work visas a year. I have posted in favor of both.

I don’t want to work within a socialist system. I want to abolish it.

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 1:23 AM

mrsmwp on August 12, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I stand corrected.

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 1:31 AM

mrsmwp on August 12, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I stand corrected.

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Wow. Some amazing and horrid statistics here.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 1:38 AM

“Undocumented Democrat” road sign at the link.

Feel free to copy it and use it anywhere.

trapeze on August 12, 2010 at 2:53 AM

But! Wait!
How are the illegals going to get food stamps and housing vouchers if we deny their anchor-babies citizenship?
I mean, that is how the entire game is rigged! They sneak in and download a future-MS13 member and then we Americans give their entire family all kinds of free stuff! That’s how it works around here.
No wonder they march around and demand amnesty… They are on the gravy train and are playing us for the suckers we have become.

shorebird on August 12, 2010 at 4:25 AM

Don’t send them away, send them the bill!

Lonetown on August 12, 2010 at 4:34 AM

Worrying about how many can be deported is a fool’s errand until you’ve figured out how to stem the flow coming into the country.

Adjoran on August 12, 2010 at 5:32 AM

I worked in the UK for several years – Thier laws are inline with almost every other country – My yougest daugter was born there. UK Birth certicate but no citizenship – She can apply when she turns 18 and moves to the front of the line but the fact is that all illegal are not US citizens so by international and US law thier children retain the same citizenship as the parents (unless they denouce thier citizenship). The immigrants want it both ways – Cant have it – BTW See what it takes to become a Mexican citizen….

triumphus on August 12, 2010 at 6:32 AM

Ah, good to see that ernesto came back to fight for the mosque some more. Different tactic, in the headlines he decided he was going to kick the South’s a$$ again.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Stirring up hate against babies–yeah, that’s a sure path to electoral victory [eye roll].

year_of_the_dingo on August 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

If only it weren’t Lindsey Graham’s kiss of death pronouncing a legislative adjustment to prohibit citizenship to stateside births from illegal aliens. AS IF IT MATTERS how long illegal aliens have been trespassing whether their babies get citizenship or not.

Graham’s losing opposite game.

maverick muse on August 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM

year_of_the_dingo on August 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Having an American citizen for a baby opens the door to the American welfare system for the mother on the baby’s behalf. If the baby were born a few miles to the south (in many cases), the mother would have to work to pay for medicine, food, and school for the kid. Up here, she doesn’t. Shoot, I’d love to be able to stay home with my kids, but we have to pay too many taxes here in Texas to pay for freebies for the illegals.

Sekhmet on August 12, 2010 at 7:54 AM

download a future-MS13 member

shorebird on August 12, 2010 at 4:25 AM

Its sh*t like this that makes me positively giddy about the prospect of a continued massive wave of hispanic immigration, and eventual majority. Racist f*cks like you deserve to be a shrinking population in this country.

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 8:05 AM

I believe birthright citizenship to be a very beneficial thing. It allows us to eventually assimilate illegal immigrants through their descendants. This is highly valuable, without it we could end up like Europe with a permanent alienated underclass that has no hope of ever joining the rest of the culture.

To me the problems associated with illegal immigration and anchor babies need to be address from other directions. We need to insist on the teaching of English, and stop encouraging immigrants to remain separate from the rest of us.

We need to engage in welfare reform to prevent it’s abuse.

There are a lot of things I think we need to change. Birthright citizenship is not one of them. Not because it’s fair, or just, but simply because it serves as a valuable tool in assimilating immigrants- and yes, in assimilating illegal immigrants too.

As much as I want the border secured and don’t care for the routine violation of our immigration laws, assimilation is the best bet for our long term health as a society and culture. I’d rather have the backstop of assimilating illegal immigrants through their children, then risk eliminating that and ending up with a large illegal immigrant population that has no home to return too, and no hope of assimilation into American society. Such a combination is extremely dangerous.

Sackett on August 12, 2010 at 8:17 AM

I see ernesto went full nutball last night.

LibTired on August 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

I see ernesto went full nutball last night.

LibTired on August 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

At least we know he is a MS-13 member now.

Inanemergencydial on August 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM

LibTired on August 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM

I like this better. His reply to those who do not fully embrace Muslims.

“Hey, y’all south of the mason dixon, glad we whooped your ass! We’d be happy to do it again anytime!!”

ernesto on August 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM

If 79% of 5.1 million children are birthright citizens, that makes just over 4 million.  If we again add in just one parent (statistically, probably slightly less, as some families will have only one parent and more than one child), that’s eight million people that can’t be deported.  If we’re adding 340,000 children a year to that total, it’s going to severely complicate enforcement of immigration law no matter what happens in Congress … assuming Congress ever does anything about immigration enforcement.

This is why amnesty WILL become a reality at some point. I know there are some conservatives that are vehemently opposed to any sort of amnesty whatsoever, but the reality is that logistically, you just can’t deport that many people, even if the political support and will was there to do so.

Amnesty will happen, because things have been left to degrade for so long that it’s the only viable option left. So it comes down to who’s terms it will happen under – the GOP’s, or the Democrats?

Vyce on August 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Sackett on August 12, 2010 at 8:17 AM

I agree with much of what you have to say here, but the problem is, as long as the child is a US citizen, the child is entitled to entitlements. Since you can’t give food stamps and housing vouchers to a minor, they go to the minor’s illegal parents. And we find ourselves paying the mother to stay home with her kids, and make more kids.

I’m all for keeping birthright citizenship, if there were some way to kill eligibility for entitlements. The only way to keep the children from qualifying for welfare, and their parents from being able to get on welfare on the anchor baby’s behalf, seems to be in ending citizenship.

Sekhmet on August 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM

You and I both know that “opposition to illegal immigration is pro-islam” was much better.

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Just taking the opportunity to spread your brilliance. You say the cutest things.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2010 at 9:36 AM

It boggles the mind that anyone thinks it’s reasonable for the U.S. to have open borders and and make anyone born here a citizen – regardless of parents’ status.

Do the open border crowd have any point where they would be against it? What if illegal immigration increased to 20 million per year? 30 million?

It takes a special hatred for the United States as a soveriegn entity to believe that it has no rights to a) even have immigration law or b) enforce them. One cannot claim to love the U.S. if one doesn’t believe in borders. Borders and citizenship define a nation, without same, there is no nation, just a geographical area. Anyone contending otherwise is simply a liar.

If 50 million mexican citizens become legal residence of america tomorrow, America is no longer america. It is a colony of Mexico.

I have no problem with legal immigration. I don’t care about increasing work visas, etc. to let in Mexicans, or any other nationality, who want to work in the U.S. But let congress set those limits and then enforce immigration laws.

The U.S. does not owe the citizens of any other country the “right” to come to america and live here. Thinking that is insane. If we owe Mexicans the opportunity to come to America for a better life, than why don’t we also have the right to invade Mexico to make it a better country for its citizens? Why is one different than the other?

Monkeytoe on August 12, 2010 at 9:53 AM

The 14th Amendment makes one condition in its language: “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.” So far as I know, that has led courts to consider children born of legal immigrants citizens of the US, since they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of America and its laws. A case can be made that the clause could restrict birthright citizenship to only those legally in the country — and it would certainly be easier to float a test case with a deportation order than it would be to amend the Constitution. Why not let the courts have a crack at it first?

Last question first:

Letting the courts ‘have a crack at it first’ would be disasterous and recent events prove that most likely — too many Leftwingers (“political activists”) are now in the Judiciary and the American voters are being insulted outrageously by these individuals on the bench.

If left to a vote (Amendment), I tend to think that the voters would chose to ENFORCE the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th (citizenship only to children born in U.S. to parents who are citizens).

All the rest:

The entire miscarriage of the 14th Amendment is some sort of Leftwing thing gone wild (and I think some of why is due to the “wet foot/dry foot” policy as to people landing in the U.S. from Cuba, which has set a sort of “landing frenzy” from among other Latin and Asian, etc., populations who feel ‘entitled’ to receive the same), anyway…

the 14th is today miscarried/misapplied by the Left, intentionally, by confusing territorial jurisdiction (a policing concept) with political jurisdiction (a nationality concept).

“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.”

The statement is not written to convey a redundant policy or concept, it’s multi-faceted. If you’re here illegally, you’re subject to another nation’s jurisdiction as a citizen of that nation, and so, any child you bear while in the U.S. illegally is also subject to that nation of yours, not to the U.S.’s jurisdiction.

I KNOW the issue’s been opined upon from the Judiciary but so far, they haven’t upheld the intent of the Amendment as it’s worded but as they “want it to be”.

Lourdes on August 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM

And, my ‘feeling’ about this issue — re-examining the 14th for to, hopefully, correctly apply it (to NOT provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally, which is what I believe the 14th never intended in the first place) — is that it has to be straightened out BEFORE there can ever be any functional “guest worker program.”

Because, if not straightened out beforehand, any guest worker program that anyone creates will simply continue to fascilitate massive exploitation of citizenship and/or social programs by people from other nations. They’ll arrive seemingly to “work” as “guests” and never leave and produce offspring and create many, many ongoing social problems for the nation, thus defeating ANY incentive to import “seasonal guest workers” to begin with.

Gotta’ separate “guest workers” from immigration, too. Has to be separated, different areas entirely, because, if not, “guest worker programs” will simply be used as another route for illegal immigration and citizenship exploitation, economically and politically.

Lourdes on August 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Question…do illegals have as many abortions as legals in this country?

Electrongod on August 11, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I’ve read that they as a general culture and various populations begin reproducing at far younger ages than our and other Western populations. Thus, Hispanics/Latinos have longer reproduction years, beginning at a younger age on average than other populations…

Females as young as 13 accepted in many a Hispanic population as sexual partners (same as Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa, unfortunately, but as affects the West, it’s the Hispanic populations I’m referring to).

Lourdes on August 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM

macncheez on August 11, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Don’t omit educational costs. All that “Stimulus II” Obama just signed off on, it’s all going to states who “redistribute” billions of American taxpayers’ dollars and a lot of what they spend it on is on public education, and the biggest takers (California, is one) spend most of that on public workers’ unions educating, so-called, children of illegal aliens, or illegal aliens themselves who are children.

Arizona’s mere attempts at SB1070 were more than enough to empty out many schools there of illegals and/or children of illegals, so only imagine to what extent California’s budget deficit is today caused by spending billions annually on all those costs for public education, given their massive illegal alien population.

Lourdes on August 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM

What was it that Patrick McGoohan’s character Longshanks (King Edward I) said about the Scots in “Braveheart” — “If we can’t drive them out, we’ll breed them out.”

KyMouse on August 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Again, the concept that I have been posing for years is that the 14th Amendment only provides U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parent(s) are here legally.

This means one, or preferably both, of their parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, or a minimum that one have a legitimate “Green Card” and that parent is required to assume full responsibility for caring for that child.

MSGTAS on August 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Having an American citizen for a baby opens the door to the American welfare system for the mother on the baby’s behalf. If the baby were born a few miles to the south (in many cases), the mother would have to work to pay for medicine, food, and school for the kid. Up here, she doesn’t. Shoot, I’d love to be able to stay home with my kids, but we have to pay too many taxes here in Texas to pay for freebies for the illegals.

Sekhmet on August 12, 2010 at 7:54 AM

Great. So your opposition to birth-right is motivated by a desire to deny medicine, food, and education to children. Yup, that’d sell.

year_of_the_dingo on August 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM

year_of_the_dingo on August 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM

So is everyone welcome in your world? Who is paying? Every thing isn’t about a sales job for the next vote. It’s about survival. Tell us how to fix it, we are all interested.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Great. So your opposition to birth-right is motivated by a desire to deny medicine, food, and education to children. Yup, that’d sell.

year_of_the_dingo on August 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Obviously, if there was no cost to having illegals here (economic and/or social) nobody would be opposed to it. And other countries would also allow geographic birth citizenship the way the U.S. now does. Is your position that the U.S. is required to care for all of the children in the world? Or just those whose parents manage to sneak across the border?

Monkeytoe on August 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM

The problem with giving automatic citizenship to anyone born here is that it is just so darned unfair to all those folks who live in countries that don’t border the U.S. All those millions upon millions of poor who would gladly do the work that Americans won’t do, who just want to make a better living for their families, who are so desperate to escape poverty that they would do ANYthing to get to the U.S. and yet, they can’t just walk a few miles across some open ground, plop out a kid and voila, kid is a citizen, parents can’t be deported and all the wonderful benefits of being in America are yours!!

Its just so darned unfair it breaks my heart!

/S

The 14th was NEVER intended to bestow citizenship to a kid whose mother managed to illegally enter the country just in time to give birth. This is pretty clear from the law that now requires ANY illegal who is charged with a crime to have their consulate notified of the fact! Where does that requirement come from?? Why, it comes from the fact that the illegal is subject to the legal jurisdiction of the nation they hail from – THUS NOT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S.

Birthright citizenship is a massive fraud being perpetrated upon this nation and it needs to stop.

P.S. Those who make the argument that we simply cannot deport all those here illegally from a logistics standpoint, did you see what just happened in Arizona?? The mere threat of that law going into effect resulted in thousands upon thousands of illegals “deporting” (or relocating) themselves. Now, if we just get the feds to announce aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws to be applied to every single person who comes into government contact anywhere in the U.S. – then there will be no logistical problem as the illegals will deport themselves!

Fatal on August 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Our problem with illegal immigrants is largely a Mexican problem, and we have to face the fact that Mexicans think they have a claim on parts of the USA. They believe that some of our states should be Mexican. Until we thoroughly repudiate this silly notion we can’t solve the problem.

VDH captured this nutball idea in an article a while back:

“I posed a hypothetical once to a Mexican consular official in a public debate, framing the request by inquiring whether he thought there would be anything wrong, say, with freighters coming ashore on the California coast, and unloading 1-2,000 Chinese nationals on average each day — few of whom would be legal, English-speaking, or with high-school diplomas.

He seemed shocked, outraged even — more so, when I added that Chinese-language facilities would be soon mandated within public services, and a sort of Chinese cultural appreciation movement would be embedded within the schools to help encourage and invigorate illegal Chinese immigrants in their own personal odysseys within California.

My own puzzlement lasted mere seconds, since the consul quickly cited Mexico’s historical affinity with, and indeed (emotional, linguistic, legal?) claims upon, the southwestern United States. Presto — here arose the unspoken assumption of the advocates of open borders (or at least of those who feel that illegal aliens should be exempt from federal immigration statutes): historical grievances have made enforcement of the law rather debatable, given that sovereignty, national borders, and the notion of a definable America altogether are “problematic.””

slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Wow. Some amazing and horrid statistics here.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

hillbillyjim on August 12, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Sanger, interestingly enough, was anti-abortion.

Count to 10 on August 12, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Medical abortions make up approximately 10% of all abortions reported (CDC).

Interesting. I had been wondering about that.

Count to 10 on August 12, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I’m suprised it’s that low. I live in Orange County, California and, according to friends that work in the local hospitals, approx. 50% of the births are anchor babies.

Callie C. on August 12, 2010 at 2:51 PM

This problem is so simple to fix! First order of business is to announce full blown amnesty and citizenship to ALL illegal currently residing within the borders of the United States. All these people immediately become eligible for all rights and entitlements of US Citizenship! The second stage of this plan is followed up within 30 minutes of making the amnesty announcement and is televised LIVE on every network and cable news outlet, obviously simulcast in every language that might be listening. During this stage all these newly minted American Citizens get to watch as every square inch of their former homeland becomes a glowing radioactice sheet of glass, no hope of them ever returning to their homeland, and no more relatives to sneak across the border in the night, or to send money back to from illegal jobs they obtained within the US. All these new citizens now can rest assured that they have a vested interest in assimilating into our culture as possible! We would have plugged the leaks at the border once and for all! Now isn’t that easy?

BadMojo on August 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Rather than trying to amend the Constitution it seems like far easier to tighten the definition of this. Someone who is here illegally can slip back across the border far more easily thn they came in.

katiejane on August 12, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Like many of these immigration issues… at first they seem to be over reacting. Then you see the numbers. Here the stories and it really really is something we need to find an answer to.

And really the first step is always: Get control of our border! Like every other civilized country in the world we need to control who comes in and out of our country!

If we did that this issue would go away. Well, maybe not but we could address it more intelligently at least.

I think some kind of duel citizenship when the child is 21 or something. And then after being raised in their parents home country they have to choose.

petunia on August 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM

It is called Reconquista. It is a slow process. It took the Christians 800 years to repopulate the Muslims out of the Iberian Peninsula. At the rate we are going, it won’t take that long.

Jocundus on August 11, 2010 at 10:34 PM

So if the goal is to retake the land Mexico lost in the war of 1847… what happens when you collapse the political system that makes that land prosperous.

It is NOT our land you need but our government.

The lawless way you are getting land, will end that government.

When we can’t enforce our laws we become Mexico with a few more white people. Run by bribery–by elites–who live to exploit, in other words, Democrats.

There are already plenty of places south of here to live like that.

So what exactly will you have gained? Nothing. You have nothing to gain from Reconquista.

But we have everything to lose.

If you collapse our system, which is the likely outcome of present policies… we will all be living like they do in Tijuana.

I’m not okay with that.

And this part of the country might have once belonged to Spain and Mexico but it was never “populated” by Mexicans or Spanish. So it is not like repopulating the Iberian peninsula at all.

petunia on August 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Its sh*t like this that makes me positively giddy about the prospect of a continued massive wave of hispanic immigration, and eventual majority. Racist f*cks like you deserve to be a shrinking population in this country.

ernesto on August 12, 2010 at 8:05 AM

I see you have come full circle and embraced your inner La Raza.

Funny how much you have changed since your first postings…reveals your intellectual immaturity. But what do you expect from a future MS-13 member. I kid…I kid.

ClassicCon on August 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM

A willingness to support himself is the only warrant a man needs to be in this country.

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 9:27 PM

A willingness to support himself is the only warrant a man needs to be in this country.

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Um no. He needs a visa, a green card, naturalization papers or a birth certificate. That is the law. Without that we live in chaos and freedom is lost.

petunia on August 12, 2010 at 10:42 PM

A willingness to support himself is the only warrant a man needs to be in this country.

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Um no. He needs a visa, a green card, naturalization papers or a birth certificate. That is the law. Without that we live in chaos and freedom is lost.

petunia on August 12, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Did Frederick Douglass need his papers too? Maybe the European Jews on the Saint Louis?

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 11:01 PM

My paternal grandfather entered the country legally in 1914. He was 3. He took his oath of citizenship in 1930.
Though his native language was Yiddish you would’ve never known that he wasn’t originally from the Quad Cities.
THAT’s how it’s done.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 13, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Maybe the European Jews on the Saint Louis?

AshleyTKing on August 12, 2010 at 11:01 PM

There’s no comparison between The ‘Voyage of the Damned’ and our current crop of illegals.
The Jews on the St.Louis had been stripped of their German citizenship by the Nazis and as such were stateless.
What those people went through had more to do with the Antisemitism of the non-German controlled nations than it did their immigration status.
The Mexican illegals are choosing to leave their home country and come here and break our laws.
Yes Ashley-by crossing that border illegally they are LAW BREAKERS.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM

Only 8%? I went from the parking lot to my wife’s hospital bed before I would hear English spoken. They even overflowed the momacitas onto my wife’s ward more often than not in the 3 yrs that I saw her in and out of the hospital. In several cases, Grandma came up from mexico to see the new baby and one case in particular, a young couple came across the week before from mexico for the purpose of having their baby.

It should be clear that people sneaking into the US to have kids should not be allowed to claim citizenship for their baby when neither parent is in the US legally to start with.

NTxOkie on August 13, 2010 at 3:05 AM

“Its sh*t like this that makes me positively giddy about the prospect of a continued massive wave of hispanic immigration, and eventual majority. Racist f*cks like you deserve to be a shrinking population in this country.”

La Raza. The RACE… Who is Racist?

Why is a continued massive wave not to be considered an invasion? Especially when more and more muslims from hostile countries are encountered in this wave of “hispanics”?

If you had people coming into your house illegally and taking your food, your money, and abusing your family as many of the criminals coming over the border do to our citizens, you would not be cheering them on the way you are.

NTxOkie on August 13, 2010 at 3:43 AM

Congress could always allow some “version” of pending U.S. citizenship for children born here to parents who are illegal aliens.

Something like, their parents’ (and therein, theirs) economic costs are to be billed to their own nations: hospital costs, pre and post natal costs, educations, food, housing, transportation, all the things currently being dinged on the U.S. taxpayers, billed back to their own countries AND PAID TO THE U.S. **IF** those people expect U.S. citizenship.

At 21, they could then apply for U.S. citizenship if their outstanding expenses have been reimbursed to the U.S. taxpayers. Or they could go back with their parents to their own countries.

I like the idea of billing the nations of illegal aliens for all their costs when in the U.S. I don’t understand why Congress has not approached this, seriously.

Lourdes on August 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2