December 26, 2005

"Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship'"

The AP's David Crary says there's a "bitter debate" over the issue, but so far the only people I've heard of on the other side are racial demagogues and the far-left. In fact, while the piece is generally fair, they don't provide any quotes from any politicians who oppose attempts to end the practice, instead providing quotes from three groups:

Michele Waslin from the National Council of La Raza says:

"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere... But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream — it's becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it."

I guess she's worried this might affect "The Race". And, they also include a quote from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. That last link says they've worked with the Mexican government. Perhaps the AP could look into that. After all, the AP shouldn't quote groups with hidden agendas. More on them here and here.

And, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, says:

"Look at Germany — the children of guest workers are not citizens... That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That's the opposite of where we want to go."

Indeed. That's why we need to make sure that almost all of our immigrants are of the legal variety and why we need to make sure that no "guest" worker schemes are imposed on the American public.

Please write feedback *at* ap.org and give them muted praise for a less-than-completely-biased report, but also suggest they give a bit more background on their quote sources.

Posted to Immigration at December 26, 2005 01:40 PM

Comments

The fact that Michele Waslin considers this an "extreme, wacko" proposal says more about her than about it - the simple fact is that nearly no nations allow citizenship for children born to non-citizens, let alone those illegally in the country. This is one of those issues that most US citizens don't think about because it is so foreign to their sense of fair play that they aren't even aware that it exists. A guy who breaks into my house is a criminal; so is a guy who breaks into my country!

Posted by: D Flinchum at December 26, 2005 05:26 PM

Absolutely.

But I think -- and hope -- it's becoming clearer to more Americans what is really going on around issues like this: they have to use labels like this -- "extreme, wacko" -- in the same way they use "racist", i.e. to paint the other side as beyond the pale so they have a chance to maintain the status quo by shortcircuiting an open and honest debate about this and related issues. Because with only a little thinking anyone can see the current policy makes no sense whatsoever; it makes no sense to say that any person born within the borders is a citizen, an "American" -- it makes the term practially meaningless.

Posted by: eh at December 27, 2005 12:53 AM

NONE of the original 15 EU countries has birthright citizenship. The last EU country to have it was Ireland and the Irish people abolished it by referendum in June 2004. The vote was about eighty percent in favor of the change.
France has a curious form of delayed birthright citizenship.But at least they wait until the children are 18.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=266
(...)
Furthermore, the principle of jus soli that had been modified by the Pasqua Laws was reinstated. Under the Pasqua Laws, children born in France of foreign parents were required to make a "voluntary declaration" of their intention to acquire French citizenship. After 1998, children of foreign parents automatically acquire French citizenship at the age of 18.
(...)

Posted by: perroazul del norte at December 27, 2005 02:01 PM

Searching for the AP link you gave at their domain gave this: further help: AP Technology Support Desk feedback “at” ap.org Are you sure this is a useful contact for comments on their journalism? I would ask them something like the following:

If “49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship” I’m unclear what version of the English language allows that to be called “extreme” given an accepted definitions of extreme is “extending far beyond the norm.” How can a near majority and considerable plurality be considered abnormal?

Posted by: jeff at December 27, 2005 05:35 PM

"How can a near majority and considerable plurality be considered abnormal?"

Ah, jeff, by the same politically correct logic that the 75% - or more - of people in the US who oppose amnesty are considered xenophobic racists.

Posted by: D Flinchum at December 28, 2005 05:03 AM