Anchor Babies, What Foreign Countries Do


Here is an old video of Harry Reid opposing granting citizenship to the babies of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.A. – anchor babies.


For all the brouhaha over Republicans wanting to review the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship/birthright clause, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, once supported revising the current interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause in 1993.

Mr. Reid introduced a bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. The bill, which died in committee after it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, includes tough immigration provisions that would make many wonder where Mr. Reid truly stands on the immigration and border debate.

Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham’s, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:

“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Even the summary of the bill contains language that would offend many of Mr. Reid’s supporters who are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States:

“A bill to curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, wrote about the failed bill in 1993, describing it this way:

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 1351) that includes a provision that would limit citizenship to those whose mothers are United States citizens or legal permanent residents. However, Senator Reid’s proposal is to amend only the Immigration and Nationality Act, not the Constitution. Additionally, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) is planning to propose an immigration reform package that will include a provision similar to that of Senator Reid’s. Whether or not Senator Simpson’s recommendation will limit the right to citizenship to only those whose mothers are citizens or legal residents remains to be seen.

Opponents of these proposals argue that they go against the fundamental traditions of the United States. The citizenship clause was originally written to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves, thereby establishing a tradition of inclusiveness. On the other hand, those in favor of the proposals believe birthright citizenship to be an attraction to illegal immigration. Under current law, simply because a child is born on U.S. soil, he or she is entitled to all the benefits that U.S. citizenship entails, including federal welfare benefits and the right to vote. Additionally, when that child turns 21, he or she will be able to sponsor his or her parents, and other family members, to the United States under the family reunification provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Reid has taken quite the 180 since he introduced his immigration bill in 1993. “They’ve either taken leave of their senses or their principles,” said Senator Reid of Republicans recently when asked about what he thought about the GOP push to clarify the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Mr. Reid tried to endear himself recently to Hispanic voters in Nevada when discussing border issues and told them, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.” Causing an uproar among Hispanics who are conservatives and Republicans, Mr. Reid’s past dabbling with the 14th Amendment cannot possibly make his liberal supporters happy.(1)

THAT WAS IN 1993. My how the times have changed. Elevated to the position of Majority Leader in the Senate, his party must have come to him and demanded that he adopt the far left line.

But as Lexington Libertarian has written before, the 14th Amendment is not about foreigners ability to have babies in the U.S.A. granted instant citizenship. The 14th Amendment is about guaranteeing the rights and citizenship of Black Americans and Native American Indians already here. That was the intent of the framers of this Amendment and even when the Supreme Court reviews a case it takes into account what the intentions were of those who drafted what is now in contention.

Ann Coulter has an article you don’t want to miss as she looks at how foreign countries handle this situation.

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

Take Sweden — one of the left’s favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.

Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden’s generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden’s welfare policies haven’t bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don’t grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a “settled” resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).

Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth — but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens. (2)

How long are we going to continually allow foreign immigrants and their babies to drain our economy dry, take work away from American citizens and lower the average American wage? How much longer will we allow everybody who plumps themselves down on our shores full welfare and benefits heretofore reserved to only citizens? Is the Obama-Reid-Pelosi AXIS OF EVIL going to be allowed to continue these policies in order to enlist more voters in the Democrat party?

(1)”1993 flip-flop: Sen. Reid introduced bill ‘clarifying’ birthright citizenship,” by Kerry Picket, Washington Times –

(2) “Look Who Is Nativist Now,” by Ann coultor, Townhall –!/page/2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s