When Margaret and I lived in Silver Spring, near the border of Maryland and Washington, D.C., our community was overwhelmed by illegal immigration. We lived near the area with the highest concentration of illegal immigrants in Montgomery county — in all of Maryland and Washington, D.C., really. As a liberal, I was aghast to learn how much these people hated me, hated women, hated gays and lesbians, hated black people, hated Americans, hated people from other countries that spoke their language — basically, they were a boiling cauldron of hatred, ingratitude, entitlement and determination to impose their culture and language and we could kiss their asses because it was our duty, in order to prove what nice people we were, to hand over everything we had to them. It had a lot in common with being mugged.
This bothered me. It still does.
I do not have a problem with legal immigrants. Why, some of my best friends are legal immigrants (for real). However, I think America’s laws against illegal immigration should be enforced. If someone comes here illegally and gets caught, the very nicest thing that should happen to them is to get thrown out that very day and be barred ever from entering the U.S. again. What? You’re going to argue they just want to make a better life? SO DOES A BANK ROBBER!
A common goal of illegal immigrants is to get a pregnant woman over the border so she can have a child who is an American citizen due to being born in America — birthright citizenship. The child is called an anchor baby and entitles a chain of relatives to immigrate.
On March 28, 2010, George Will published a column at Townhall.com explaining the history of the misunderstanding that led to permitting birthright citizenship. I’m including it here since the overwhelming number of people now living in the U.S. illegally are from countries and cultures where women are property and gays and lesbians get killed for being homosexual. They are in a position to vote away my equality as a woman and to bar any hope homosexuals have of attaining equality through the states legislatures and Congress. I am entitled to fight back. Here is a sample from Will’s column, but be sure to read the whole thing:
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, “can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.” Therefore, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.”
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.
Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born “subject to” U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his “own will without the action or assent of the United States.” And “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”
Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”
One of the things that astonishes me about illegal immigration is how the conditions that drive people to leave their countries are not intractable, as Leftists/liberals like to portray them. Generally they are coming from countries with enough natural resources to prosper. Mexico is an oil-rich nation! Cuba could be a paradise! They are escaping systems they could fix and if they did, they would make the world a better place while they are improving their own lives.