A new bill would end automatic citizenship for all children born to undocumented immigrants. This bill was proposed by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia and supported by the Tom Tancredo wing of the Republican party.

This bill is a travesty because it tramples on the 14th Amendment guarantee that anybody born in this country is a citizen of this country. It is not the child’s fault that they were born to someone who does not have the right papers.
The article is laced with typical right-wing slurs against immigrants, all of which are myths:

In Hidalgo County, Hollis Rutledge, chairman of the Republican Party, said the change would close a loophole that illegal immigrants are exploiting.

“I have my concerns as it relates to a blatant abuse of people taking advantage of that situation,” he said.

As mothers come to birth American children, it overburdens the school and welfare systems, he said.

Enacted after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was designed to help grant citizenship to slaves.

In fact, immigrants create jobs; they do not take jobs away.  For example:

Immigrants in Silicon Valley alone create 58,000 jobs and $18 billion in economic revenues.

Here is the effect that immigrants have on the economy:

# Employment in about one-third of all U.S. job categories would have contracted during the 1990s in the absence of recently arrived, noncitizen immigrant workers, even if all unemployed U.S.-born workers with recent job experience in those categories had been re-employed.

# Thirteen occupational categories collectively would have been short more than 500,000 workers during the 1990s without recently arrived noncitizen immigrant employees, even if all unemployed natives with recent experience in those categories had been re-employed.

# Eleven job categories would have seen their workforce contract by more than 7 percent during the 1990s if recently arrived noncitizens had not been available, even with re-employment of experienced natives.

# The earnings of immigrant workers rise and eventually equal or surpass those of native workers the longer the immigrants live in the United States and as they naturalize.

# Given the long-term economic success of immigrants, over-reliance on temporary worker programs may unwisely terminate the upward mobility of immigrant workers just as they begin to achieve their greatest productivity.

So, the longer immigrants stay, the more productive they become, and the more money they put into the economy. The notion that immigrants somehow take jobs away is a myth perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh as part of his crusade to identify scapegoats as a reason to vote for right-wingers.

This is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe in giving people the resources they need to succeed in life, regardless of who you are. Republicans, on the other hand, believe in a huge Nanny State in which they create a dependency class. They want you to become dependent on them so that you do not have to deal with “Those poor Black people from New Orleans,” “Those welfare queens,” “those Mexicans trying to take away your jobs,” or the next such scapegoat they can think up to keep people in bondage.

Democrats want people to vote their hopes and not their fears. We want people to create a society in which all people are welcome regardless of race or nationality. Throughout history, most societies have shown hospitality to guests and strangers. Christian ethics demand that we show hospitality to such people, lest they sit in judgment on us. On the other hand, the Republicans try to create a power structure based on fear.

Another problem with the bill involves enforcement:

That poses another dilemma: If birthright citizenship ended, who would enforce it?

Lisa said Doctor’s Hospital doesn’t have the resources to verify citizenship and is not keen on being assigned the task.

“As an administrator, I would feel uncomfortable being placed in a position by our government to act in a place of a government official,” Lisa said.

Elizabeth Flores, a registrar clerk at Laredo’s vital statistics office, said parents seeking a birth certificate for their child do not have to prove their citizenship.

Under the current rules, all that is needed for an American birth certificate is paperwork from a U.S. hospital recording the birth, and identification from the parents.

If birthright citizenship were revoked, Flores figures enforcement would be up to immigration officials, not the city.

“Even though we know we have people who are not here legally, we don’t ask,” she said.

In other words, if we revoke the citizenship of people based on birthright, we would have to create a gigantic police state in order to enforce it. So, this is a fundamental question we have to decide as a country — do we have sensible laws on immigration, increase the quotas on legal immigration to meet business demand, create a US Department of Peace and send workers to Latin America to create econmic development programs, and create a microcredit lending program for people in Latin America so they can start their own businesses in their own countries?

Or do we continue the climate of fear that Bush created through the passage of the Patriot Act? Draconian laws like the one being proposed here are a logical extension of the Patriot Act. The Republicans are all about controlling whatever you do, and this is simply a crass attempt to create a police state. But when they hire enough thought police, throw out enough immigrants, and create a big enough climate of anger, then where will it all end? We will become morally bankrupt as a nation because nothing worthwhile grows out of a climate of anger. Whenever there is a big problem with our security, the Republican response has always been to create a police state.

Do you want to throw your lot in with the Democratic Party and continue the work of giving liberties to gays, Blacks, women, and others? Or do you want to throw in your lot with people like J.D. Hayworth, who smirks and foams at the mouth at people he doesn’t agree with? For example:

“I’m going to step away from diplomatic rules and offer President Fox some straight talk: President Fox should shut up,” Hayworth told HUMAN EVENTS. “He should shut up about all of this because he is only fanning the flames of poor relations between our two nations. He needs to cease and desist.”

Hayworth continued: “What’s disgraceful is President Fox presuming to lecture the United States on how best to protect itself against an invasion — an invasion that has his wholehearted advocacy. . . . He needs to stop his advocacy of an invasion of his countrymen into our nation. What’s shameful is that, as the president of the Republic of Mexico, he does nothing to stem this invasion. He actively endorses it.”

In fact, President Fox supports Bush’s guest worker plan which involves requiring undocumented workers to pay a fine, get work for three years, and then leave the country. But Bush is responsible for the conduct of his fellow Republicans. He began the “with us or against us” mantra; so it is hardly surprising that Hayworth might see fit to apply it to his own agenda, with a smirk or two thrown in as well.

From the Hayworth article, here is more rumor-mongering from the right:

Colin Hanna, president of WeNeedAFence.com, said Fox’s comments could ultimately backfire.

“President Fox’s belligerent statements are not helpful, and are certainly not the remarks of a statesman, never mind an American ally,” Hanna said. “We hear reports that the Mexican military and government officials are actually helping illegal aliens cross the border. If President Fox really wanted to help, he would turn his attention toward ways to stop the official and unofficial fostering of the massive tide of illegal immigration.”

Indeed? Then, why doesn’t he pass this information on to Homeland Security so they can deal with it, rather than whip people into a state of fear over this? Hanna is the one making the assertion, so he should be the one to supply the evidence.

This is typical of hysterical right-wingers — they make arguments based on fear, not on fact. I am shocked that the media does not focus on this hysteria more instead of the so-called Dean Scream. If Dean was screaming, then Hayworth is yelling so loud, it would drown out a Rolling Stones rock concert.

We have a fundamental choice to make as a country. On the one hand, we can uphold the Constitution and its clear and plain meaning on who is a US citizen and who is not. We can validate our heritage by affirming that many of us descended from immigrants who came here for a better life. Or we can trample on the Constitution like Bush did with the Patriot Act and decide on selective interpretation just because we don’t like the implications of the 14th Amendment.