Republicans propose Mexican border wall
Republican legislators have proposed a bill to build a 2,000 mile wall at the border between US and Mexico in order to keep illegal immigrants out. The True Enforcement and Border Security Act also calls for thousands of new border patrol officers, immigration investigators, immigration judges, and attorneys, according to a joint statement released by US Representatives Virgil Goode (R-VA) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA). (Incidentally, Rep. Hunter may have the worst designed website on the Hill.) It is not yet certain whether the fence-building legislation will receive enough backing to pass in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The proposal comes the day after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff outlined plans to increase security along US borders. Chertoff’s plan includes the construction of a 14-mile wall near San Diego and the hiring of more federal agents.
Additionally, a group of Republican lawmakers who want to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship, or jus soli, are researching whether it can be done by a congressional statute or if it would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require approval by three-fourths of the US states. AFP has more.
12 Responses to “Republicans propose Mexican border wall”
Ah, reminds of the “friendship ditch” from the movie Speechless…
Related to immigration & citizenship, there are two interesting books out on the subject. TechCentralStation has a profile of a new book by Orrin Judd, of the BrothersJudd blog. It is a collection of “of speeches and essays written by some of the most powerful statesmen of the late 20th century to the present, from President Ronald Reagan to Kofi Anan, through which Judd weaves an interconnecting narrative.”
The 2nd book is Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good by the, famous to some people, Bertrand De Jouvenel.
I have no problem with the wall, but I tend to think that birthright citizenship is one of the chief measures that has allowed the U.S. to absorb so many diverse immigrants as successfully as we have.
By giving immigrants an incentive to Americanize — that is, by holding their children to the rights, privileges, and obligations of the citizens — birthright citizenship encourages them to learn our language, to understand at least some of our laws and political system, and to think of the U.S. as their home. It brings emotional and even economic loyalty, as parents naturally want what’s best for their (now American) children.
In contrast, French citizenship can be quite difficult to obtain. Only a couple weeks ago, I’d have had to explain why this is a bad thing. Now, though, it’s fairly self-evident.
Getting rid of jus soli would be a really bad idea, and I’m pretty sure it would require an amendment. I’m not positive, but I think the USSC said that bit of the common law was codified in the Constitution.
The Americans are not a people united by blood and soil, but by a creed. Nativism is not new here, but it is always depressing. A poem comes to mind; may its truth be remembered.
The New Colossus
Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
The 14th amendment clearly states:
It’s hard to imagine how Congress could possible think they could undercut this with simple legislation.
“It’s hard to imagine how Congress could possible think they could undercut this with simple legislation.”
It’s hard to imagine lots of things this Congress has done. That hasn’t stopped them.
Here are my 2 questions about this bill…the wall part that is.
1. Would it work?
2. How much would it cost?
1. Would it work?
It would work as well as interdictions of drug shipments.
2. How much would it cost?
More well than you can imagine….
I have no problem with the wall, but I tend to think that birthright citizenship is one of the chief measures that has allowed the U.S. to absorb so many diverse immigrants as successfully as we have.
But if I’m understanding the proposal correctly (and I may not be), I think it’s only being suggested that we end birthright citizenship as it applies to illegal immigrants.
Thus, if you have a child while in the US legally, whether by immigration or visa or just plain tourist, the child is deemed an American citizen. And if your presence in the US is in violation of US law, then your child can’t profit from that fact.
Maybe the question of Constitutionality is whether a ‘legal presence’ requirement can be read into the 14th Amendment.
1. “Thus, if you have a child while in the US legally, whether by immigration or visa or just plain tourist, the child is deemed an American citizen.”
2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (emphasis added)
The first emphasis is fairly clear, I don’t believe there is much of a way getting around it. You could somehow, if you chose to free all non-citizens from US jurisdiction, do that according to the second emphasis, but that would seem to be an outrageously bad idea.
It is precisely in the case of illegal immigrants that birthright citizenship becomes so important: It encourages them, now that their children are U.S. citizens, to become citizens themselves, or at the very least to acculturate so that they aren’t more of a liability.
It would not surprise me if Congress simply passed a law to overrule one of the key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. They and the other branches of government have done it before, whether through malign neglect (permitting Jim Crow) to in effect declaring the entire privileges and immunities clause null and void (the Slaughterhouse Cases). Why stop there? I mean, the whole thing is just a list of suggestions, right?
This will be an issue in the 2008 presidential election. Hillary Clinton postitioned herself to the right of many Republicans on it a few months ago. We’ll know it’a a real and not a political concern if strong penalties against employers are proposed. As far as making the border tight enough to keep out terrorists, they might make up what? .0001% of those crossing illegally. More “look we’re doing something” legislation.
A wall is a terrible idea unless you’re trying to keep out Mongol hordes. If we want to cut down on illegal immigration, we need to go after the big agribusinesses (like the fields in Califoria) and the service industries that actively aid-and-abet illegal immigration because it gives them cheap labor.
Getting rid of “jus soli” is both wrong and impossible without a constitutional amendment, for all the reasons above. Why is my party still taking pages out of the Pete Wilson playbook?
Finally, I couldn’t let this go by:
“2. How much would it cost?
More well than you can imagine….”
I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.