It was 5 a.m.

and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant [is]. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid. She gave birth to a healthy, 8 1/2 pound baby boy - born in America. His Mexican mother gave him an American name: Eliot. Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for
their parents to become U.S. citizens.

Because of how frequent this occurs, my partner and I are Resolved: That birthright citizenship should be abolished in the US. Lets look at the 3 reasons to end birthright citizenship, starting with:

Reason 1: Diminishes Citizenship

The New American, 2010
[Chip; Geopolitical Editor of the Personal Liberty Digest; Anchor Babies and the Illegal 14th; the New American; 27 May 2010; http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/chip-wood/3641-anchor-babies-and-the-illegal-14th; retrieved 7 January 2012]

Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked, and their answers, had to be in English. As an
essential part of the process, every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he or she had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home the United States of America. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.

There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with hugs and tears and enthusiastic applause. That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean. But today we are required to bestow it on anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is absolutely insane. This policy undermines citizenship and its true basis: patriotism. The historical intent of our own constitution proves this. From the same source:
Wolverton '11 [Joe; "Maternity Tourism" Business Booming in California; the New American; 29 March 2011; http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/6899-qmaternity-tourismq-business-booming-in-california; retrieved 7 January 2012] The first prong of the inquiry is the meaning of the key phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof as used in the text of

the 14th Amendment. The clause in its context reads, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside. One of the authors of the citizenship clause was Michigan Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, a Republican representing Detroit. Howard was one of the charter members of the
modern Republican Party. In fact, he helped formulate the platform of the GOP that was announced at its first convention held in Jackson, Michigan, in 1854. Senator Howard, who began his congressional career as a member of the Whig party, allied himself with President Lincolns coterie of supporters and played a vital leadership role on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. As such, Howard crafted much of the language that was eventually ratified as part of the 14th Amendment. During the debates that embroiled the Senate in those historic days following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard

declared:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of
national law a citizen of the United States.

persons. How could a person born in the United States be simultaneously a citizen and a foreigner or alien if the
mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship? The Senators explanatory introduction crystallizes the intent of the man who wrote the citizenship clause. His statement suggests strongly that the legislators who supported the 14th Amendment never intended to swaddle all babies born within the geographic boundaries of the United States within the snug and secure blanket of citizenship. The doctrine of jus soli was not contemplated by the Congress and is inconsistent with the record of debates preceding the passage of the 14th Amendments citizenship clause. We dont need to take Senator Howards word alone, however. Howards understanding of the existing law of the land was reinforced by another influential lawmaker, Lyman Trumbull, the co-author of the 13th

Amendment (the other of the two Reconstruction Amendments). Trumbull, in commenting on the intended application of the restrictive subject to the jurisdiction thereof language appended to the citizenship clause, asked, What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. That is about as direct a statement as one could hope for in such matters. Weve deviated from this constitutionally intended immigration system, based on allegiance.

Reason 2: Incentivizing illegal immigration

According to the Center on Immigration Studies, 2011: http://bit.ly/yuueGY Observers have begun to focus on the fact that, with some frequency, pregnant women cross the border illegally with the specific intent to bear their children in the United States, thus gaining for the children the gift of citizenship and ultimately a legal
foothold for the parents and siblings as well when the child is old enough (21 years of age) to file a petition on their behalf for permanent resident alien status. In addition, if the child marries a foreign national, then of course he or she is entitled to petition for the spouse without regard to age, providing the marriage is recognized as valid under the laws of the state or country where it occurred. And, once resident status has been gained, that spouse can then petition for her or his immediate relatives, ad infinitum. There can be little doubt that illegal aliens giving birth to children in the United States is a frequent occurrence and is not a new phenomenon. A short conversation with any seasoned health care worker at a hospital in a border area such as El Paso, or a major metropolitan area such as Los Angeles, would confirm that beyond any reasonable doubt. But how frequent is frequent? What kind of numbers are we discussing? Jon Feere, in an exhaustive study of international citizenship laws published by the Center for Immigration Studies in August 2010, cites a number of sources estimating

[estimates] that between 300,000 to 400,000 such children are born each year to illegal aliens.1 By circumventing our managed immigration system, we undermine our own financial stability and ability to provide for anyone. Newsmax, 2011:

[James Walsh; Open Borders Advocates Finding Their Voice; Newsmax; 23 January 2011; http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/immigration-anchor-babies-dream/2011/01/24/id/383683; retrieved 7 January 2012]

What the rally speakers failed to acknowledge is that children brought illegally across the southern border are already
benefiting financially from U.S.-funded education, healthcare, financial assistance, public safety, freedom of speech, and economic opportunities. For the most part, the rally speakers failed to acknowledge the costs of anchor babies,

children born in the United States to mothers here illegally. Estimates are that such babies cost U.S. taxpayers some $13 billion per year. Such expenditures, with no end in sight, are driving a number of states toward bankruptcy. Rally speakers shied away from public expenditures for
illegal aliens, since many U.S. taxpayers are questioning such expenditures that are driving a number of states into insolvency.

Former Congressman Goode in 2009 also notes:

[James Walsh; Open Borders Advocates Finding Their Voice; Newsmax; 23 January 2011; http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/immigration-anchor-babies-dream/2011/01/24/id/383683; retrieved 7 January 2012]

The Congressional Research Service acknowledged, There could be instances where some family
members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixedstatus families. This means that if a family of illegal aliens sneaks into the country and then they

have one child after they come in, the US Citizen anchor baby could make the entire family eligible for tax funded healthcare. And I dont need to tell you how Obamas handpicked Health
Czar would come down on the issue.

The more our welfare system swells, the less effective it is for everyone. As the same source went on to say,
[Virgil; Former Member of Congress; Legal Immigrants and "Anchor Babies" Weigh Down Obamacare; Town Hal; 14 September 2009; http://townhall.com/columnists/virgilgoode/2009/09/14/legal_immigrants_and_anchor_babies_weigh_down_obamacare/pa ge/full/; retrieved 7 January 2012]

Like virtually every issue that faces the nation, our healthcare problem is greatly exacerbated by mass immigrationboth legal and illegal. A total of 43% of non-citizens lack health insurance, compared to just 12.7% of native-born Americans. These uninsured immigrants impose huge strains on our healthcare system that helped create the crisis we currently face. Plenty of analysts and
commentators have exposed how illegal aliens will receive healthcare under Obamacare. They point out that while the bill claims to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits, the Democrats repeatedly blocked Amendments that would screen for legal status. Steve Camorata of the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies recently

estimated that 6.6 million illegal aliens will be eligible for public healthcare [under President Obamas healthcare bill].

Reason 3: Threat to National Security

This is the most disturbing problem with birthright citizenship. From a March 2011 study by the Center on Immigration Studies: Real consequences can attach to birthright citizenship. By way of example, Anwar al Awlaki, the fiery American cleric in Yemen, as he is often described by the media and pundits, is a product of our current lax birthright birthright citizenship rules, even though he is clearly antagonistic to Western
standards generally, and to the United Sttes particularly, and has no interest in his citizenship-by-birthright, except perhaps as a tool to be used against us.

Al Awlaki was born April 22, 1971, in Las Cruces, N.M., of non-

immigrant Yemeni parents while his father was studying in the United States as a foreign student. He left the
United States to go to Yemen with his parents when they returned, but he reentered the United States later, using his identity as an American citizen, to pursue his own studies before deciding to go back again to Yemen. Those who follow such matters may recall that al-Awlaki acted as a spiritual advisor to three of the 9/11 hijackers; was in communication with Nidal Malik Hassan, the Army major who later went on a killing spree at Ft. Hood, Texas;

counseled the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to blow up an aircraft before landing in Detroit; and served as inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, perpetrator of the failed 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt.18 In the most recent episode of the ongoing saga,
al Awlaki has been arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison in Yemen, which cooperates with the United States in the war on terror. A large part of al Awlakis undoing, if it can be called that, is attributable to his decision to take on a public persona and put his anger, contempt, and hatred for all things American on display for everyone to see, with the intention of influencing potential followers to a path of violent action something he clearly was successful at doing. But it is easy to envision an entirely different and chilling scenario. Imagine a young man born in the United States of non-immigrant parents and taken away at a very early age, reared in Waziristan, educated in Islamist madrassas and trained in the fundamentals of terror at one of the many camps in Southwestern Asia; someone who has flown under the radar of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies and is therefore unknown to them. He would be entitled to

walk into any American embassy or consulate worldwide, bearing a certified copy of his birth certificate and apply for indeed, demand a U.S. passport. That passport would entitle him to enter and reside in the United States whenever and wherever he chose, secretly harboring his hatred, an unknown sleeper agent of al Qaeda or any of the other multitude of terrorist organizations with an anti-Western bias and a violent anti-American agenda, waiting for the call to

A U.S. passport is the gold standard for would-be international terrorists, giving them ready access to virtually any country on earth where they may elect to set up operations say against American diplomats,
arms. Nor is the potential damage limited only to the American homeland. corporate interests, or even tourists. What is more, it is entirely likely that such individuals would be dual nationals and thus carry with them two legitimate passports (in addition to any they may have acquired of a false or fraudulent nature). Selective use of those passports in passing through different countries makes it exceedingly difficult for U.S. and allied intelligence, military, or border security agencies to track such persons global travels and thus put them on the radar, because they will go out of their way to keep the U.S. passport clean of visas or entry and exit stamps from countries which would act as a red flag and cause further examination of the persons travels, background or views. Conclusion The

Incognito travel is the lifeblood of international terrorist organizations, and passports and visas and the use of nationality as a means of misdirection are prime weapons of those organizations, as has been investigated and reported by the staff of the 9/11 Commission.19
scenarios described immediately above may seem fanciful, but they are not.

Current statistics show: [same source as above] 192,100 children [were] born to non-immigrant entrants in [2009] a single year may not seem overly large, but it must be added to the estimated number of children born of illegal aliens (300,000-400,000) yearly. And the question of whether children born in the
In the context of our overall population, United States of foreign students, tourists, exchange visitors, and casual border crossers should have bestowed on them so freely and casually the gift of citizenship, with all its attendant rights and privileges, is not simply an intellectual-cumstatistical exercise.

In 20 years, all 192,100 foreigners can come into the US as citizens from wherever they came, whatever theyve been doing all their life. In conclusion
[Bruce; Founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California; The Truth About Anchor Babies; Town Hall; http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2010/09/13/the_truth_about_anchor_babies/page/full/; retrieved 7 January 2012]

Canada and the United States are the only advanced economies that still grant citizenship to babies born of illegal immigrants. 164 countries have eliminated this benefit. That is not to say we shouldnt declare these babies to be citizens because other countries dont. We should eliminate [birthright citizenship] anchor babies because it is the correct public policy for our citizens, and an expression of fairness to all of the people who aspire to become American citizens.