Smoke Signals 2

There is no doubt that one of the biggest questions and issues on the minds of most Americans is illegal immigration. One of the “loopholes” for illegal immigrants is the “anchor baby”. What happens is that a couple comes over and the woman gives birth to a child here. Under the current wording of the 14th amendment, that child is automatically a citizen, and the parents are not able to be deported, not to mention that the child also qualifies for welfare and medicare.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I want to make clear that I am NOT advocating anything that would deny basic human rights to anyone, but this is more than that. Doctors in America WILL NOT turn the mother away, because their oath as as medical doctor they will make sure they give the mother and the child the care and treatment they need. The question arises though, should the American tax payer be FORCED to pay for that child for 18 years?

There are two schools of thought here. The first, and I see the point in a way, would change the 14th amendment to no longer allow anchor babies, thus saying that anyone born here, but born to parents who are here ILLEGALLY, will be returned to their parents’ home country as soon as is safe for the child, and the parents go too. The second school, which also has merit, would return the parents to their home country almost immediately, but the child (who would still be a citizen) would be placed in the care of the state to await adoption. The argument here is that this is almost facism or stalinism. The question is though, if the child is a citizen, they have all the rights that other citizens have, and therefore to send them home with the parents would violate those rights, but to allow the parents to stay is an undue burden on the American tax payer. If the parents are fleeing for their lives, that is different, but most aren’t, and therefore these are pretty much the only two ways to make a change, should one be made.

Some say that to do this is still forcing the tax payer to pay for the child, but not really. If the children are adopted, then they will have a good home, and their adoptive parents would pay for them. Even if only 40% to 50% of them are adopted, that reduces the tax burden quite a bit, and also ensures the money from taxes is going to support the child, NOT to the parents who may or may not use it for the child.

Mostly, we need to make a choice, we have seen what un-restricted immigration does to a country (see France riot situation), and we now need to either take a stand and say that we still want people who want a better life to have that opportunity, but we REQUIRE they do it right, or we need to just lay down and let our country be invaded continually, as it is being invaded now.

So, what am I asking you to do? Call, fax, write, or e-mail your Congressman (in the House especially) and let them know where you stand on this issue. We elect them to represent us, but how can they represent us if they do not know where we stand? You can bet anything you want that the aclu will be chiming in on this one.

Cross posted at Smoke Signals Blog