Earlier this month at Washington, D.C.'s National Press Club the State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of legislators from 40 states, unveiled its strategy to end the policy of giving automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Led by Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the organization timed its press conference with the 112th Congress' swearing in ceremony. The group hoped to send the message to Congress that it needs to seriously address one of illegal immigration's root causes, namely birthright citizenship.
Among developed western nations, as defined by the World Bank, only Canada and the United States still grant automatic citizenship at birth to anyone born on their soil.
Referring to possible legislation that would end birthright citizenship by requiring that at least one parent be either a citizen or a legal permanent resident, Metcalfe said: "According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography. The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer."
Curiously, California is not among the 40 states represented among the concerned legislators. The state and its largest city, Los Angeles, have suffered fiscally and environmentally more than anywhere in America from the consequences of illegal immigration and legal citizen anchor babies.
According to the Department of Homeland Security's most recent available statistics, about 2.6 million illegal aliens live in California. In Los Angeles County, the nation's largest county with a population of 9.8 million, about 54 percent (5.3 million) speak a language other than English.
According to L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, in 2010 the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was more than $1.6 billion including food stamps and benefits from CalWorks, a comprehensive welfare program.
Antonovich added that welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants (anchor babies) cost Los Angeles County more than $600 million last year, "not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education."
Yet education is by far the most expensive illegal alien entitlement. For Antonovich to leave it out of his calculation is like omitting your monthly mortgage from your family expenses.
Had Antonovich included immigrant education costs, he could have added a staggering $3 billion to the taxpayers' tab.
The California Department of Education's website shows that K-12 schools included as part of Los Angeles County's districts had 410,000 non-English speakers enrolled during the 2009-2010 academic year. Nearly 90 percent (369,000) list Spanish as their native language.
The inescapable conclusion is that most Los Angeles County non-English speakers come from Mexico or Central America and are either illegal immigrants or their citizen children.
Using a conservative average annual cost of $7,500 per student, the estimated education dollar total for those illegal immigrants and anchor babies is $2.8 billion. Added to Antonovich's $1.6 billion welfare costs, the aggregate bill is $4.4 billion -- in Los Angeles alone! Statewide, the sum approaches a staggering $10 billion.
California is such a mess with its $25 billion deficit and 12.5 percent unemployment that ignoring the obvious costs associated with illegal immigration is folly. Cutting teacher salaries and closing libraries, as Gov. Jerry Brown proposes, won't eliminate a multi-billion dollar debt. But discouraging illegal immigration by eliminating one of its biggest magnets, automatic birthright citizenship, will.
—
Joe Guzzardi is a columnist and senior writer for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS). He can be reached at JoeGuzzardi@CAPSweb.org.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:01 am on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
This is a "Demand Side" approach to an economic problem. It goes, "Cut down on demand and we solve the problem." But it is not a Conservative Approach. The observation that no only Canada and the US grant citizenship by birth illustrates that our immigration policy has resisted change. And resisting change is a classical Conservative Approach.
And there are other border related problems, one being the huge demand for illegal drugs on this side of the border and its related demand for illegal fire arms on the other side. A Demand Side solution to this would address why there is a drug market in the US. A supply side solution would address efforts to stop the drug cartels in the south. We fail to address either, but cry over insufficient law enforcement officers on our side and our wide open borders.
Where Reaganomics Neo-cons are supposed to be supply siders, why don't they act consistently? Answer, It's easier to blame others than themselves.
The Conservative approach would be to take a holistic approach to these related problems, and while attempting to maintain our values and traditions, look for ways to solve the lot. But that would require us to look ourselves in the mirror. Why do ask in one Century
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me."
And in the next, say "stay home"?
Have we changed?
Freethinker posted at 9:14 am on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Despite the bleatings from the pro-illegal crowd, the truth is plain for all to see (for those not trying to fool themselves or others).
If Arizona doesn't start to seriously curtail the illegal felon problem here, Mesa will soon become another Los Angeles...heck, drive down Gilbert and Broadway RIGHT NOW and check out the cockroaches littering and relieving themselves in public!
And "Mesa's Finest" just drive on by completely oblivious.
Freethinker posted at 9:19 am on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me."
Ah, the old "bait and switch" dishonesty from another pro-illegal.
The problem is that the immigrants that came through Ellis Island ...wait for it...CAME HERE LEGALLY!
And if a family member was sick, guess what? THEY WERE SENT BACK WHETHER OR NOT THE REST OF THE FAMILY STAYED OR NOT.
Dale Whiting wrote:
"Have we changed?"
Indeed we have - we had no issues breaking up the families of LEGAL immigrants, but now the pro-illegals are crying because the families of ILLEGAL FELONS will be broken up.
Sorry if I don't shed any tears over this bigotry.
ridiculous2010 posted at 10:18 am on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Once again, we write more laws to regulate the live, behavior, and diminish privacy of those who are here versus protecting the citizens... Why in the world do we have such an enormous defense budget if it's not going to be used to protect Americans in America... Protect OUR border... Not Iraq's... Not Korea's... Not Afganistans... Not the 30 other nations we have armed forces... Protect America... It just seems silly that we'll grope every airline passenger travelling domestically (and not travelling internationally into the US) yet allow MILLIONS of people to flow between our southern border... And so-called self proclaimed conservatives think these additional laws do anything to stem the flow of illegals coming here...
Self-proclaimed conservatives need to take a moment and reflect where their ideology is rooted because it certainly isn't rooted in Locke, Smith, Jefferson era small-government thinking... When the modern conservative (and modern liberals) have more in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao they should realize they've been misled some point along way...
sockratties posted at 10:42 am on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Dale,
I agree with your demand side dynamics scenario. The politicians are “cherry picking” their arguments so they can sound good while not facing real problems. It’s true that demand for drugs here fuels drug cartels there. The corruption and poverty that destroys the economy there (largely due to the drug cartels) drives immigration across our borders. Interdiction has never worked before and it won’t now, no matter how many laws are proposed or passed. Enforcement of existing laws hasn’t worked… why make more?
Joe Guzzardi is mistaken if he thinks birthright citizenship would have any effect at all on the problem. Trying to change the U. S. Constitution to solve a social problem (drugs and crime) is a red herring that diverts attention from realistic solutions. Sen. Lindsey Graham fueled the fire with the claim that “people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.’” This assertion is false and the phrasing demonstrates a lack of compassion and disconnect from humanity and the misery politicians are willing to exploit . The so-called “anchor-babies” wouldn’t be able to assist a relative for another 21 years when they come of age. That’s the law. We should worry about today, not 2032.
The Pew Research Center and Douglas S. Massey, professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University have show that the immigration is driven by jobs and family reunification. The birth of a child promotes neither of these goals. More than 90% of the mothers are in this country for well over a year before having a child, many for more than three years.
Until our political pundits are willing to address problems in a holistic way, as you stated, they will continue to ineffectively waste their time and our money on meaningless legislative attempts, lawsuits and posturing while the problems only grow less manageable.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:20 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Yes sockratties [nice handle],
Our Neo-cons must oversimpify both the problems and their proposed solutions. Where our favorite simpleton, Forest Gump, in script said "Stupid is and stupid does" Neo-cons subscribe to "Keep It Simple, Stupid" the KISS principle. KISS has its applications. But as you aptly point out, where simple solutions do not address the over simplified causes, the solutions don't work.
EmperorSmith posted at 12:55 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Problem if you can not see it then you are stupid.
I would love to meet u day whitney, ;) Have Rich bring his bow.
EmperorSmith posted at 12:57 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Nevermind, tell your cronies that you recruited to go away.
Chilidog posted at 1:03 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
So what is the difference between the citizen child of an illegal alien and the citizen child of a poor person?
Are the not both entitled to the same education?
Do they not both grow up to be adult workers and tax payers?
Chilidog posted at 1:05 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
I would like to know how much potential tax revenue the state will lose 15 years down the line when those citizen children that they chose not to educate are now citizen adults with no education, no prospects and no means of earning a decent wage?
Chilidog posted at 1:08 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
So what is cheaper? Educating citizen children today in the hopes that they wil grow up to be productive, wage earning, tax paying citizen adults later or not educating children and knowing that they will grow up to be poor wage earners, or worse, suffer higher rates of incarceration for the lack of a viable education. Is saving a few million dollars now worth the expense of hundreds of million dollars more in future incarceration costs?
Oh, Wait, I forgot, they want to privatize prisons.
EmperorSmith posted at 1:38 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
I heard TAX way to many times there.
Cerulean posted at 8:37 pm on Mon, Jan 31, 2011.
Dale,
Yes, I think we have changed. "the homeless, tempest-tost to me" were survivors of the first kind, and thankfully so. The immigrants of today have their own interesting history as to how and why they made the journey, however the US no longer needs settlers. Which kind of leads to your economic problem. It seems to me that if we live in a world economy then there is no need to grow more consumers here in the US. So why does/has our government been so tolerate of border filtration. Is it only because we can't really do anything about it? If that is the case then we need to stop the "anchor babies". I think?
Dale Whiting posted at 9:30 am on Tue, Feb 1, 2011.
Cerulean,
Nice to hear someone address these issues on a higher, more adult plain. Rediculous2010 appears to be coming from a higher perspective, too. If you read me closely, I almost never take a side on an issue. I just try to stimulate a values based discussion of them.
The referenct to "Locke, Smith, Jefferson era small-government thinking" by rediculous2010 was interesting. However, according to Kirk, when compared with John Adams, Jefferson was not a conservative!
Freethinker still thinks I am a flaming liberal. Apparently Rediculous2010, Sockratties, Rich, you and the more well educated among us recognize otherwise. We are traditional value based, not issue based conservative thinkers. And there appears to be no hope for these others to assend to higher plains.
This was William F. Buckley's sourse of frustration with today's Neo-cons. How is your reading of Russell Kirk coming? He, too, was frustrated by Neo-cons!
EmperorSmith posted at 12:55 pm on Tue, Feb 1, 2011.
Hope you like higher plane on that planet.
Richka posted at 2:32 pm on Tue, Feb 1, 2011.
Sockratties....The term "drop their babies" is not "drop off their babies".
These anchor kids provide their mothers with cash welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, health care and eventuelly a free education for their children. Of course they come here to have their children on american soil. By the time they "drop" 5 or 6 anchor babies, they live pretty comfortable off the american tax payers. Besides having the live-in boyfriend or husband working under the table, they are better off than most average american families.
Cerulean posted at 6:12 pm on Tue, Feb 1, 2011.
Dale,
You cause me to pause and wonder? About many things . . . but yes, I am enjoying reading Kirk. I have just started the segment on John Adams. It's funny because I was thinking of you as a Cactus Jacobin. That is what the Rockefeller Republicans called Goldwater. You were correct "He does not descent to our level of understanding of History. . . . . ." With patients, I discover that I had no idea there were so many 'isms' possible, like Meliorism etc..
In response to rediculous2010, do we really want a heavily militarized border? For how long? Would it look like the border between North and South Korea, for instance? Does the problem warrant that much force? Why ARE there open corridors?
Freethinker posted at 11:43 pm on Tue, Feb 1, 2011.
Dale Whiting bleated:
"Freethinker still thinks I am a flaming liberal. Apparently Rediculous2010, Sockratties, Rich, you and the more well educated among us recognize otherwise."
I simply expose your false claims and lies when you post them, The fact that the only replies I get from you afterwards are grade school insults speaks volumes.
As far as "more well educated", clean up your atrocious grammar first before trying to tell others how "educated" you are, okay?