iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater Oppose Giving Citizenship To Children Of Illegal Immigrants

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 06/03/10 08:13 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:40 PM ET

Mike Lee Immigration

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul isn't the only GOP candidate running for Senate in 2010 that believes the United States should abandon its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Mike Lee and Tim Bridgwater, who are facing-off in a primary battle for the Republican nomination for Senate in Utah, both share Paul's view on the immigration issue; however, neither Tea Party-backed contender has come under the same degree of fire as Paul for maintaining the controversial -- even unconstitutional -- position.

The Salt Lake City Tribune reported that "stemming the tide of illegal immigration" and specifically "plugging the so-called anchor-baby loophole" emerged as a top priority for the GOP candidates' legislative agendas in a recent debate.

Both Bridgewater and Lee agree that children born to parents who are in the country illegally should not get instant citizenship, even though the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- ratified in 1868 as part of post-Civil War reconstruction -- says as much.

Lee also defines his position on his campaign website. In tackling the issue, the Senate hopeful suggests congress must "clarify the original intent of the citizenship clause through legislation specifying that children born to illegal-alien parents in the United States are not entitled to automatic citizenship."

Similarly, Bridgewater advocates his stance on birthright citizenship on his own site:

Eliminate the "anchor baby" loophole. In general, it should be harder-not easier-than it is to become a citizen of the United States. Children born to non-citizens should not receive automatic citizenship. There are arguments to be made that changing the current practice will require a constitutional amendment, but I think there is a strong case that it could be done by statute, and I would pursue that avenue vigorously as Senator. If it can't be done by statute, I would support a constitutional amendment to achieve the goal.

Despite being rivals, Lee and Bridgewater share similar views on immigration. Both have expressed support for legislative measures seeking to revoke the right of citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. -- a position that would appear to run counter to the 14th Amendment.

"The way I read that amendment is that you're not necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. just because you're born here," Lee recently said when speaking at a Utah event. "If you're born to parents of illegal aliens who have come here in open violation of our laws, you're not born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The GOP hopeful however admitted, "The 14th amendment provides that any person born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be a citizen of the US and of the state in which he shall reside."

Lee's communication of his position on immigration comes despite the fact that he has made his "love" and superior "complete, practical understanding" of the Constitution a cornerstone of his campaign platform.

Lee recently articulated his support of the so-called Birthright Citizenship Act by saying, "I support H.R. 1868," while Bridgewater makes clear he'd support such measure right on his campaign website.

Given the fact that Lee and Bridgewater define themselves as such strong adherents to the word of the Constitution, it is perhaps ironic that the GOP Senate hopefuls stand firm in their questionable reading of the 14 amendment.

WATCH: Mike Lee: U.S. Should Stop Giving Citizenship To Children Of Illegal Immigrants:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul isn't the only GOP candidate running for Senate in 2010 that believes the United States should abandon its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of illegal i...
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul isn't the only GOP candidate running for Senate in 2010 that believes the United States should abandon its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of illegal i...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,144
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:56 AM on 06/13/2010
The GOP's new motto should be: Trying to turn back the clocks in America, one century at a time
06:36 AM on 06/05/2010
Make it HARDER to immigrate? For f***'s sake, it could only be made harder now by requiring applicants to bring unicorn horns with them! I have to wonder how many of these anti-illegal immigrant candidates know anything at all in general or about how hard it is to become a naturalized American citizen in particular. I'm thinking not, on both counts.

And if they are so opposed to this, would they perhaps care to return to Europe and give this land back to the Native Americans? After all, they never granted citizenship of their land to the Europeans!

And people wonder why the rest of the world is looking down on us. . .

VS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:11 AM on 06/05/2010
Either you accept and defend the Constitution or you vote to change it. You don't have the right to make up WHAT YOU believe the Constitution should say. By doing that, you make yourself irrelevant.
01:28 AM on 06/05/2010
I vote for a change to the 14th amendment to close the anchor baby loophole. Do you?
03:01 AM on 06/05/2010
You'd have to go back a little further than the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment was adopted to expand the principle of "natural rights" for those born on U.S. soil but not recognized as citizens of states. You'd have to go all the way back to the Declaration Of Independence and remove the part about all men being born free. That is one of the cornerstones of being an American. We can return back to the era of "all men except"
again by pushing this 'Anchor baby" issue, but that would take us back to 1776, much further back than post Civil War.
08:56 AM on 06/05/2010
It's not a loophole. The 14th Amendment is unequivocal for a reason. What you want to do is discriminate and say that only some people born in the US can be citizens.

What's next, only some people are entitled to due process? Oh . . . wait . . . the last administration worked very hard at violating the rights of citizens. And many on the right seem to think that it's okay to deny due process to anyone they consider a "terrorist".

I guess the Declaration of Independence no longer has meaning in some camps.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Matt Osborne
12:23 AM on 06/05/2010
Kulturkampf: the relentless pursuit of political warfare by any means necessary. Characterized by a need to rehash ancient, settled law, right-wing and authoritarian pandering, paranoia, and gross incompetence when actually in command. Extraordinary reactions create cognitive dissonance. May spout eliminationist rhetoric in support of bizarre hypotheses.

This contagious condition is known as "Captain Tripps" (or "teabaggery" on the East Coast). Victims are immune to facts unless they directly impact the post-frontal lobes. IOW, when dealing with outrage zombies you must shoot for the brainpan.

Remember: a sword of truth never needs reloading, just a willingness to swing -- even on your relatives. Don't let the zombies bite!
12:17 AM on 06/05/2010
The term "anchor baby" is a derisive terms used to strip away citizenship from someone who met the qualifications outlined in the U.S. Constitution for citizenship. The labeling of these U.S. citizens helps to criminalize them and allow for anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant proponents to cast whatever aspersions they wish. If you are born in the U.S. and are a citizen you receive all the benefits if you qualify that the society provides. Making a distinction among U.S. citizens based on your own criteria of parentage divides our country into de facto legitimate citizens and illegitimate citizens which is the first step in denying these citizens their full rights. But this is the purpose of these candidates because the ethnicity of these citizens and their growing numbers frighten them for some reason.
02:08 AM on 06/22/2010
Wrong. Illegal Aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, by virtue of the fact that they are here illegally. Read the history surrounding the 14th Amendment.
08:38 AM on 06/22/2010
This idea of jurisdiction is a fallacy talking point created by the virulent anti-illegal immigrant anti-immigrant supremacist factions. It is simply wrong. If you are born here, you are subject to the U.S. jurisdiction. Which came first? The chicken or the egg. Children who are born here are U.S. citizens, get over it, open your mind and stop letting your prejudices cloud your reason when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrsGrapevine
MrsGrapevine.com yes I'm one of those gossip blogg
12:03 AM on 06/05/2010
The party of the Constitution once again opposes the Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RRanch
09:17 PM on 06/04/2010
I am increasingly embarrassed to say I was born in Utah.
06:37 AM on 06/05/2010
Hey, at least it wasn't Texas.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Debbie McPherson
08:41 PM on 06/04/2010
Rogue Wolf

Yes, you know the costs to taxpayer for all those anchor babies being born because you worked in the Dallas Hospital

and once they are here taxpayers have to pay for their education and in Denton County that is estimated at $11,000.00 per year per child - schools are paid for by the property taxes and illegals are costing everyone a lot of money
It's time to stop anarchy at our borders

The people who are protesting here I am fairly certain have a personal interest because they ahve illegal relatives hiding and working here and hustling the system

surely no rational legal citizen would think what is ahppening with illegals is anything but terribly detrimental to the country as a whole

that is why when these posts jump quickly to high drama name calling like white supremacists - racists - it's just plain silly
We invite a million people a year into our country leagally, no other country comes even close to being that open.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WowJones
Non union slaves built the White House
08:55 PM on 06/04/2010
Despite Rhetoric, Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’ Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services.

According to the Comptrollers’ office, state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services like education, health care and safety, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data, the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes, which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%, according the Congressional Budget office.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:11 PM on 06/04/2010
"A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%, according the Congressional Budget office."

To do that they would need an S.S. number, don't you think? Not only are they breaking immigration laws, they are stealing other peoples identifications.

We have laws for a reason. Nothing justifies breaking our laws; they are what makes us a sovereign nation and keeps us free.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Debbie McPherson
10:19 PM on 06/04/2010
wow

according to your horse shti figures America should open the borders and ask all Mexicana to flood the country and save us from our growing national debt

gee, with all the illegals living in california - that state must be rolling in extra tax money!!!!


hahahaha
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Repubnomore
09:11 PM on 06/04/2010
For starters, the cost of healthcare in this country is inflated because everyone - the government, insurance companies, employers, and individual consumers - end up paying to cover those that lack insurance, use the emergency room for primary care, and don't pay their medical bills. Do you have stats that show the percentage breakdown of the non-payers by ethnicity or citizenship? If not, your assumptions are anecdotal at best.

If your school district is funded by property tax dollars. every resident - legal or illegal - pays property tax directly (homeowners) or indirectly (renters). If your area's property tax revenues are down or inadequate for the school's funding needs, it's a school board reform issue. Do you have stats that show how many more "illegal" children are overburdening the schools?

If your school is funded by sales tax dollars, consumer spending is down locally and more people are buying online to avoid paying sales tax. This issue runs rampant across the country and is not affected by immigrants. Immigrants pay sales taxes whenever they purchase locally.

Many undocumented workers also pay payroll taxes without being able to collect any of the benefits. If they don't pay payroll taxes, it's because their employers are paying them illegally. Do you have stats to show how many businesses are not collecting and remitting payroll taxes? Why aren't these employers being prosecuted?

Immigrants are people, just like me and you. If they happened to be born here, they are citizens, just like me and
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
06:17 PM on 06/04/2010
There are currently more than 425,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 2008). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year and now count substantially more than half.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WowJones
Non union slaves built the White House
06:21 PM on 06/04/2010
C & P straight from the White Supremacist Organization FAIR.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
06:25 PM on 06/04/2010
Prove the data is false.
07:00 PM on 06/04/2010
How does being against illegal immigration make you a white supremacist? Does that mean that the more then half of Americans including over 30% of HISPANICS who are against illegal immigration and in favor of the Arizona law are all white supremacists?

I don't care what color people who come here are, just that they're LEGAL and QUALIFIED. I care that they worked hard in their home country, got an education and can contribute to American society instead of just pushing low skilled workers who already have a hard time finding jobs onto the welfare rolls. Who are these low skilled workers? A lot of them aren't white; I'm advocating for a nationality, Americans, not a race.

If you lived in Calfironia you would know what Rogue is talking about. Illegals are bankrupting the state. The millions of illegals cost literally billions in education and health expenses. If you have 500,000 children of illegals (a conservative estimate) in school thats 500,000 times 10,000 per child or 5 billion in additional spending (often more due to their ESL needs). If you have millions of illegals at an average cost of 2000 dollars per year in unreimbursed emergency care thats another several billion.

California has some of the highest taxes on residents in the nation and is still broke beyond belief these days and its mainly due to the huge illegal population that is draining the state coffers dry. We need an immigration that prioritizes skilled migrants and stops the budget bleeding.
01:35 AM on 06/05/2010
There is a very easy way to curtail illegal immigration with making one change to the Constitution. Make the fine for a business who hires an illegal 50K per person for every day they worked. Make a second offense (don't think there would ever be a second offense) 100K per person per day of work. The second part is for the federal government to send troops to secure our borders. Anyone attempting to cross illegally will be shot on site for attempting illegal entry into the US.
06:42 AM on 06/05/2010
I am unsure of your political leanings, but I do have to agree with your first idea: increase punishments on those who provide work for illegals. If the work dries up, the illegal immigrants have no reason to come here, right? So increase penalties and add extra enforcement on businesses that keep hiring illegals, and that will help with the problem.

The second idea, not so much. We can't spare the troops and I'm not sure trying to sneak into the US deserves immediate execution. Deportation, yes; execution, no.

VS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProudObamacan
A Real Republican - not a Right Wingnut
08:57 AM on 06/05/2010
idopaytaxes,
Here is my last reply - I will address your post above And, sadly, based on the lack of quality replies, I will not be addressing you directly or responding to your newer posts. It is just not enjoyable interesting with someone who does not provide real data, does not provide real insight into issues and does not get it.

"There is an easy way to curtail illegal immigration"..A change in the Constitution requires
1. a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment
2. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention.
Regardless of method, ratified, or approved, by 3/4 of states... then ratified by the state legislatures. - good luck with that

At this point, you just don't seem teachable or eager to learn anything - the concept of interacting on post, for me, is to exchange ideas and learn something new - a new perspective. I have tried to have intellectually stimulating interactions with you, but, unfortunately, our interactions have not grown - they are static.

Good luck to you. I hope you learn something by continuing to post at Huffington. Take Care
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
06:16 PM on 06/04/2010
In Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the United States, 70% of the women giving birth were illegal aliens. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million dollars to deliver these babies, the feds another 9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in 31.3 million. The average illegal patient is 25 years and giving birth to her second anchor baby.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WowJones
Non union slaves built the White House
06:18 PM on 06/04/2010
There is no such legal term as "anchor baby". It's a derisive term used by bigots
06:19 PM on 06/04/2010
To accurately describe a bad bad US law. Hopefully after November when real leadership takes control, this can be visited for change.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
06:21 PM on 06/04/2010
The term “anchor baby” may be unfamiliar to most Americans but it succinctly describes a troubling aspect of American immigration.

An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one (See also Chain Migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies
06:18 PM on 06/04/2010
No way, proudobamacan stated that this was false so it has to be false, lol

Or maybe he said false/true.

Your post is factual and known by all except those suffering from liberalism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProudObamacan
A Real Republican - not a Right Wingnut
07:06 PM on 06/04/2010
Thank you for referencing me. I appreciate the shout out - I think???
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Roguewolf
30-Year Military Veteran
06:14 PM on 06/04/2010
According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WowJones
Non union slaves built the White House
06:16 PM on 06/04/2010
You can't find one of the over 150 SCOTUS decisions on this matter to back up your wrong headed assertion. Epic fail
ModerateVoiceofReason
Confusing with facts
05:37 PM on 06/04/2010
Here in the U.S. no law can go counter to the Constitution.

It's not as if this issue regarding "anchor children" just popped up. It happens every time immigration reform becomes a hot issue.

The Congress, even when it was under firm Republican control, has NEVER thought to pass a law to exclude the children of illegal immigrants because it would not pass Constitutional muster. Congress has NEVER offered a serious amendment to override the 14th amendment because it's too darn hard.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. is your only hope. Lotsa luck
11:47 PM on 06/04/2010
Or an Amendment. Let's see how the nation as a whole polls on the subject and make changes where necessary to rid ourselves of anchor babies.
05:30 PM on 06/04/2010
I would be interested to know whether it is important to become a citizen in the US if you are already a legal resident. For example do the legal (non-citizen) residents have the rights to the benefits that the citizens enjoy?

Here in Finland legal residents have the right to participate in local elections and have pretty much the same rights as citizens.
ModerateVoiceofReason
Confusing with facts
05:40 PM on 06/04/2010
In the U.S. one can't vote unless he or she is a citizen. One can't hold office, and many government benefits and jobs are off limits to non citizens. There are other privileges too.
ModerateVoiceofReason
Confusing with facts
05:29 PM on 06/04/2010
All people born in the U.S. are citizens, that's the 14th amendment. Further court rulings since the amendment was ratified have affirmed that.
Nowhere does it say "except for the children of illegal immigrants, or people we just don't like." Whoever isn't specifically excluded under our law is included. That's our American common law tradition
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim303
05:19 PM on 06/04/2010
Fad suckers