Reforming Anchor Baby Citizenship

"Any serious immigration reform considered in the next Congress should revisit the concept of birthright citizenship (namely that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' status), or what is sometimes referred to as the 'anchor baby' issue," writes Heritage Foundation's Genevieve Wood. She gives the following rationale:

• Birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigrants to have children on U.S. soil in hopes it will allow them, the parents, to gain legal status;
• It fuels "chain migration," the process whereby one legal family member, once 21 years of age, is able to apply to bring in parents, siblings and in-laws. According to one study, 747,413 (or 66.1%) of the 1,130,818 immigrants granted legal permanent residency in 2009 were family-sponsored immigrants.
• It is costly to the U.S. taxpayer. While illegal immigrants themselves do not qualify for welfare, they can obtain Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. (One study found that "nationwide, 40% of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare.")
• And last but not least, birthright citizenship, as currently understood, is arguably unconstitutional.

Wood explains the constitutional issue this way:

For America’s first 100-plus years, the idea that just because someone was born on U.S. soil made them a U.S. citizen was disavowed. But a Supreme Court decision in 1898 (yes, there was judicial activism back then, too) that broadly and wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause changed all that.

The original intent of the Citizenship Clause was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship status.  It was never intended to give such status to children born here because their parents were living here as foreign ambassadors, diplomats or consuls, or simply because their non-citizen parent(s) had a baby while visiting or residing, legal or otherwise, in the U.S.

Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky puts it this way:

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens. They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Source: Not All Kids Born in the US Should Be Made Citizens, Genevieve Wood, The Daily Signal, The Heritage Foundation

Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants

"Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)," report Center for Immigration Studies scholars Steven A Camarota and Karen Zeigler in a new study.

Among their findings:

• The total number of working-age (16 to 65) immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job increased 5.7 million from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2014, while declining 127,000 for natives. 
• In the first quarter of 2000, there were 114.8 million working-age natives holding a job; in the first quarter of 2014 it was 114.7 million. 
• Because the native-born population grew significantly, but the number working actually fell, there were 17 million more working-age natives not working in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000.
• Immigrants have made gains across the labor market, including lower-skilled jobs such as maintenance, construction, and food service; middle-skilled jobs like office support and health care support; and higher-skilled jobs, including management, computers, and health care practitioners.
• The supply of potential workers is enormous: 8.7 million native college graduates are not working, as are 17 million with some college, and 25.3 million with no more than a high school education.

The authors drew these conclusions with regard to the Senate's 'Gang of Eight' bills and current immigration debate:

With 58 million working-age natives not working, the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744) and similar House measures that would substantially increase the number of foreign workers allowed in the country seem out of touch with the realities of the U.S. labor market.

Three conclusions can be drawn from this analysis:

First, the long-term decline in the employment for natives across age and education levels is a clear indication that there is no general labor shortage, which is a primary justification for the large increases in immigration (skilled and unskilled) in the Schumer-Rubio bill and similar House proposals.

Second, the decline in work among the native-born over the last 14 years of high immigration is consistent with research showing that immigration reduces employment for natives.

Third, the trends since 2000 challenge the argument that immigration on balance increases job opportunities for natives. Over 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years, yet native employment has deteriorated significantly.

Immigration Reform Concerns Spark Opposition

"Are House Republicans planning to pull a fast one on immigration?" asks Byron York.

... the Wall Street Journal stirred a lot of interest this weekend when it reported that GOP leaders are hoping to put one over on voters who oppose reform. The plan, the Journal said, is to delay a vote on a bill until after the deadline passes for primary challenges across the country. That way, a GOP lawmaker whose constituents oppose reform could lay low until the coast was clear -- no primary challenge! -- and then vote against his voters' interest. From the Journal:

House leaders hope to bring legislation to the floor as early as April, the people close to the process said, after the deadline has passed in many states for challengers to file paperwork needed to run for Congress. Republican leaders hope that would diminish chances that a lawmaker's support for immigration bills winds up sparking a primary-election fight.

If true, such a GOP strategy would certainly set off a lot of anger among conservative voters. But is it true?

York checked with his sources over the weekend and found that, although there is "no consensus" to move on the issue, House leadership would like to move on something.

Many conservative publications have voiced opposition to immigration reform, including the Weekly Standard ('Comprehensive' Immigration Reform? Just Say No) and Investor's Business Daily (An Unholy Alliance of Business, Congress Push Amnesty).

Now this from National Review Online: Don't Do It:

The House Republican leadership has been confronted by devilishly difficult tactical choices over the years. But what to do on the issue of immigration right now isn’t one of them. The correct course is easy and eminently achievable: Do nothing.  ...

The basic tactical reason not to act now is that the last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand on Obamacare. It is not as though the public is clamoring for an immigration bill. Only 3 percent cited immigration as the biggest problem facing the country in a Gallup poll earlier this month. In the key contests that will decide partisan control of the Senate, Republican candidates are much more likely to be helped than hurt by refusing to sign onto any form of amnesty. ...

For now, nothing worth having can pass the Democratic Senate or get signed into law by President Obama. Rank-and-file conservatives in the House should firmly reject the course that their leadership wants to take, and convince it to reconsider. We hope, in short, that they make a clarion call for inaction.

Congress's Non-Priority Immigration Reform

"New polling data from Gallup shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not think handling immigration reform is even close to a top priority for 2014," writes Matthew Boyle at Breitbart. (See Gallup poll graphic below)

In fact, only three percent of Americans think the issue is a priority that must be dealt with this year.

Despite the fact that most Americans clearly do not think Congress or President Barack Obama should consider immigration issues a priority in 2014, House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership are currently considering them a priority.

The immigration/amnesty legislative priority, argues IBD, stems from an unholy alliance of business (the 208 major U.S. companies in The Business Roundtable) and politicians in Congress ("including many in the GOP leadership").

It's hard not to be cynical about this. Businesses like cheap labor. And politicians like political contributions from business. So they've formed an unholy alliance to push the idea that the costs of amnesty for illegals would outweigh the benefits. But they don't.

Last year, economists Robert Rector and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation toted up the fiscal costs to U.S. taxpayers of unlawful immigrants and amnesty. They're staggering.

On average, the study found, the average illegal immigrant household costs U.S. taxpayers about $14,387 a year. All told, in 2010, the U.S. had a fiscal "deficit" — that is taxes collected vs. welfare spent — of $55 billion for illegal immigrant households.

Well, the argument goes, after amnesty they would become taxpayers, and those costs go away, right?

Wrong. In fact, the deficit per illegal household goes up to $28,000 after amnesty, or nearly $160 billion nationwide. And that's just for those illegals already here.

"Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, ObamaCare, Social Security and Medicare," the authors note. "The fiscal deficit for each household would soar."

Heritage Graphic: 10 Problems with Immigration Bill

Source: Heritage Foundation

Kiss Trust in Government Goodbye

Quote of the day from John Woo:

Add up all the recent scandals and the message is clear: the Obama administration is showing that it cannot be trusted with the basic functions of government: law enforcement (surveillance of reporters), taxation (IRS scandals), and national security (Benghazi).

Yet Americans are being told to trust this and future administrations to manage their health care (Obamacare) and immigration reform (Gang of Eight proposal).

Scandal and Distrust Trifecta

"Let's take a breath and take stock, shall we?" writes Dave Carter @ ricochet.com.

We have the IRS acting more like the KGB, singling out groups and people for harassment on the basis of political philosophy.  We have efforts to learn about the deaths of four Americans under attack overseas, and the subsequent lies that our government told us about that attack, labeled as a sideshow and a political circus by the Commander in Chief.  We have the federal government secretly gathering months of phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters in what AP's management has termed a, "massive and unprecedented intrusion." ... As David Burge observed on Twitter, "MSNBC must be having a hard time deciding which story to ignore first."

As if that weren't enough for Obama, abortionist Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of first-degree murder for brutally killing newborn babies (a practice Obama refused to vote against as a legislator), Obamacare is going off the rails in a slow-motion train wreck, and immigration reform—Obama's latest play to a political constituency—appears less persuasive after learning the Boston marathon terrorists were recent immigrant-citizens who raked in at least $100,000 in welfare dollars.

The IRS scandal offers valuable lessons, particularly for Obamacare and immigration reform proponents, argues Paul Mirengoff at powerlineblog.com:

Gang of Eight Reform: Too Much Too Fast

From the Heritage Foundation, "the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill, explained in one infographic."

Despite Sen. Marco Rubio's sincere belief in the need to fix immigration—and let's face it, who doesn't believe immigration needs fixing—the 844-page Gang of Eight's "comprehensive immigration reform" may simply be too much for Americans to endure after Obamacare, another comprehensive piece of legislation that has already thrown our economy and our health care system into a dangerous tailspin.

"In my view," writes John Hinderaker, "the bill is flawed at its core ... and efforts to improve it are misguided. Here is why..." 

Hinderaker lists 5 sound reasons, chief among them that this legislation will not stop what he argues is the "insane policy" of "chain immigration," which allows newly legalized residents to "bring over their family members, ad infinitum." 

He estimates when all is said and done, this bill covering 11 million initially will quickly result in 30 million newly-legalized U.S. residents — each eligible, as the Heritage infographic notes, "for government benefits such as welfare and entitlements." (Is now a good time to point out that the newly arrived Boston terrorist family received more than $100,000 in welfare payments?)

"Conservatives," he argues, "should propose one, and only one, reform: an end to chain immigration, as part of a recalibration of our immigration law that would seek to serve the interests of existing American citizens, and no one else."

 Americans are still on the floor from the economic body blow of Obamacare. Is it too much to ask from Washington that it give the country a chance to get back on its feet before knocking it down with immigration reform?

No More Self-Delusion on Immigration Policy

Michelle Malkin reminds us how quickly sound, successful public policy can be derailed by politicians.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created NSEERS, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.

Administered and championed by Justice Department constitutional lawyer, immigration enforcement expert and now-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, NSEERS stopped at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at certain official ports of entry.  NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries ...

That higher scrutiny included 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry, digital fingerprint checks, and verification of exiting the country, as well as registration and monitoring of temporary visa holders. In addition to blocking unfriendly visitors, NSEERS also resulted in "the apprehension of dozens of illegal alien felons."

Once in office, however, the Obama administration

...indefinitely suspended the NSEERS pilot program and has no plans to revive it in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings."

Now the Gang of Eight Republicans want conservatives to jump in bed with these security saboteurs for another Amnesty Now, Enforcement Never plan? Who’s [Senator Marco] Rubio kidding? Only himself.

It is hard to argue with Malkin on this point. This administration has made no secret of its desire to overhaul immigration policy and make citizens—and voters—of illegal foreign nationals currently in the U.S. Yet given Obama's record on NSEERS and other immigration policies already in place, it seems all too likely that, if comprehensive immigration reform is passed, Mr. Obama will permanently get his millions of new citizen voters, and any promised future prevention and enforcement policies will be temporary at best.