61% of the people understand the problem, and the solution. Why does no one in congress get it?
Please go read the whole article. It is well worth your time.http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/ju...ee-citizenship/
Birthright citizenship continues to be a part of the national dialogue. A recent Rasmussen poll showed 61 percent of Americans want birthright citizenship ended, 28 percent are opposed to ending it, and 11 percent undecided. This strong support is partly a public reaction to the discovery of birth tourism businesses, with foreigners entering the country for the sole purpose of giving birth to a baby that becomes an automatic citizen. Our attention is also heightened by one of the most-wanted al-Qaeda leaders, Anwar al-Awlaki, a citizen of Yemen and the United States who was born here while his parents were on temporary visas.
Due to a lenient birthright citizenship policy, there are enormous taxpayer burdens to fund the births of unauthorized aliens, tourists and others with border crossing cards. Taxpayers often pay for birth and extended care costs, including C-sections, premature deliveries, heart valve repairs and other surgeries.
The California Department of Health Care Services reports that in a recent year 107,000 unauthorized aliens qualified for Medi-Cal. Their deliveries represented 40 percent of public-funded births. Of the nation’s total births, 345,000, or 8 percent, are to those without permission to be in the United States. About 30 percent of the births to those without permission to be here are in California.
Unauthorized alien women comprise about 7 percent of the California female adult population, but have 20 percent of the births each year. This is partially due to high birthrates but also to birth tourism.
In the main citizenship case for resident aliens, Wong Kim Ark, the justices clarified U.S. citizenship is not guaranteed for every birth. They understood a “hostile occupation” as an exception for granting citizenship to births of parents who had not lawfully acquired a domicile here. The justices wrote that to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and owe allegiance, one must first have permission to reside in the United States.
This part of the case is profoundly unknown. Even the Congressional Research Service overlooked that section in a report to Congress. The researcher incorrectly wrote this case made no distinction between lawful and unlawful residents.
But the Ark justices also cited a previous case where a person requires the nation’s consent to be under complete jurisdiction. Those without permission to reside are only under territorial jurisdiction.
Ours is a benevolent nation that has gradually allowed granting citizenship for every birth, except those to diplomats. The current practice primarily took hold during the 1960s. During the 1950s, children born here of lawful guest workers were not given U.S. citizenship.