STOP 'ANCHOR BABIES' NONSENSE

Support Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011
We may soon reach the last link in “chain migration” as the legislative battle to clarify the 14th Amendment has officially begun. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R. 140, “To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Upon introduction, it was immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 140 is not a separate amendment to the Constitution, nor will it nullify the 14th Amendment. The intent is to revert back to the original intent and meaning of the  “subject to jurisdiction” clause in the 14th Amendment which states in whole, “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.”


This clarification is sorely needed to straighten out once and for all whether children born within the borders of the United States are automatically granted full citizenship and all the accompanying privileges and immunities, or whether the language and intent and sense at the time of adoption of the 14th Amendment shows that babies granted full citizenship needed to be born to those who were here legally, subject to the laws of these United States, and without allegiance to any foreign powers. The original intent of the founding fathers of the 14th Amendment -- Lyman Trumbull, Jacob Merritt Howard and John Bingham  -- is difficult to miss.

With 340,000 anchor newborns added to this country in 2008 belonging to illegal parents, plus the 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal parents that will be or are already being educated and covered by taxpayer funded health care programs, it’s no wonder Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of closed borders, no amnesty, and the end to what is a de facto immigration policy that is in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

Many highly organized and well-funded special interest groups are mobilizing to pressure congress into opposing and stifling any clarification of the “subject to jurisdiction” clause.  Those favoring a non-existent but wholesale “immigrants' rights” policy include the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, American Immigration Lawyers' Association, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and others. They are attempting to influence the debate by carefully shifting the terminology they use to promote their cause.

Contact your Representative and Senators in Congress and explain your stand, educating them on this issue if you, too, are in favor of the original 14th Amendment that did not grant automatic citizenship for all children who happen to be birthed on our soil, regardless of their parents’ status. And be sure to emphasize that any sovereign nation has the right to set boundaries, geographic ones as well as those concerning human affairs and sustainability.

Thanks,

Your friends at the John Birch Society