Kyl: Illegal Aliens' Kids Shouldn't Be Citizens

(CBS)  Updated Monday 1:44 p.m. ET

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.

Last week Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was considering introducing a Constitutional amendment to repeal a provision of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born within U.S. borders. Graham suggested that children born in the United States whose parents are here illegally should not automatically become U.S. citizens.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "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."

Arizona's Republican - the architect of the controversial immigration law that was largely - also separately proposed the same measure.

"The 14th Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

Kyl said he suggested to Graham that Congress hold hearings, "and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is."

The growing support for the issue suggests the Republicans are exploring different strategies to fight the Obama administration's victory over the Arizona immigration law, after Bolton issued a preliminary injunction on key provisions.

Kyl is a supporter of the law.

"I think the court's decision was wrong," he said today. "The governor and legislative leaders have talked about possibly tweaking - to use their phrase - the law to see if they can obviate the concerns the judge expressed. I don't think they can because her decision was very sweeping.

"I think it more likely that Congress could act to actually fix the problem," Kyl said, "by reaffirming that it is Congress' intent that the law be enforced, rather than having the administration decide that they don't want to thoroughly enforce the law."

Kyl said his support of the law has to do with illegal aliens taking jobs that Americans want; immigrants posing a burden on the state in the form of education, medical care and welfare benefits; and crime.

"To me the most important thing is the crime associated with it - not necessarily committed by illegal immigrants but committed on illegal immigrants, as well as the roughly 15 percent of the people who cross the border each year illegally who are criminals."

But this week's "Face the Nation" host Harry Smith pointed out that crime has had a negative correlation with the arrival of immigrants. "Crime in Phoenix, for instance, is down significantly over the last couple of years," Smith said.

"That's a gross generalization," Kyl said. "Property crimes are up. Certain violent crimes on certain parts of the citizenry are up. Phoenix is a very large source of kidnapping. It's called the kidnapping capital of the United States because the illegal immigrants who are brought to Phoenix for distribution throughout the country are held in drop houses. They are mistreated, horribly treated."

Kyl said the law is not discriminatory. "But if you live here in Arizona you'll appreciate the fact that we have a great tradition, particularly with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. It's not a matter of being anti-Hispanic. It's a matter of wanting to enforce the law."

But Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, disputed Kyl's claim.

"I think that whenever you enact something that requires police officers - as the law would have done - to engage in stereotyping, to engage in racial profiling, acting on what they understand to be the undocumented profile, that's going to result in discrimination against Latinos and others who may appear to be foreign, who may appear to be immigrants," Saenz said. "In that very practical sense, it is an anti-Latino law."

Saenz also lashed out against those who support changing the 14th Amendment.

"I think it's deplorable," he said. "It's an attempt to turn our back on 150 years of constitutional history and tradition. I think it's contrary to the values of this country. I think it's an assault on the recognition that ours is a country of immigrants and always has been. The 14th Amendment is very clear: Anyone who is born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat, is a United States citizen. That has led to great success. It's part of what has made this nation the great nation that it is in 2010.

"I think determining to change that would be a grave mistake," he said.


EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier edit of this story suggested that Sen. Kyl supported repealing the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship. While the senator has proposed hearings on the Constitution's guarantees on citizenship and what he terms a "reward" for parents who are in the country illegally, Kyl's communications director Andrew Wilder said that "he did not call for the 'repeal' of the 14th Amendment."

[johney66]

I grow weary of this thread. It doesn't really matter what you, I or anyone else have to say or think about it. It's not our decision. What we post here WILL NOT make a difference! Are you for or against? The people in power don't care what we think.
BTW, not wanting illegals here IS NOT racist! It doesn't matter what color they are, an illegal is an illegal be they black, white or brown. And it doesn't matter a fiddle stick if they are hard working or not - they are still illegal. And most DO send a large portion of their earnings back to their country instead of spending in our economy and most will NEVER learn to speak or read English or assimilate. I know this because I manage several apartment complexes and have several illegal families living there and Hispanics working for me. And a lot of the ones here legally don't want the illegals here either. They even call them mojaos or mojados which is a derogatory slang term meaning wet back.

[celtcalgal]

all those in favor of illegal immigrants can support them -- as I DONT WANT TO.

[johney66]

If they are illegal, they don't belong here, send them back - that simple.
If we were illegal in ANY other country in the world we would not be allowed to stay, why should we take on the responsibility of financing anyone who wants to hop the fence and come here. Send them back the same as they would send us back.

[sawitatthezoo]

It's amazing how overt the racism has become in this country during the past few years. While I agree that people should take more legal means re coming to this country, they aren't taking jobs that most entitled Americans would actually work and I also don't think that it would be such a heated topic if the people coming to the US were white and protestant.

Mexicans and other immigrants who come to the US should be able to speak at least passable English but maybe the influx of other cultures can finally force most ignorant Americans to become better citizens of the world and have them bother to learn another language. Hell a lot of Americans can barely compose a passable thought in English (I think we all remember the current governess of Arizona during her recentish gubernatorial debates). Sometimes I can understand a person speaking Spanglish better than I can one speaking Ebonics or Southern American English that has more silently pronounced letters than French.

[johney66]

I agree with the deportation of illegals, not giving them benefits such as welfare, free medical, even disability because they don't speak English, and the list goes on and on. Regular US criticizes can't get a lot of these needed things because they speak English or don't have 50 adults and kids living in a one bedroom apartment so they can send OUR money back to Mexico. Our government is SO Far from what the founding fathers intended for our country. It seems that the politicians in power these days (and at least the last 75 years) are out for themselves and not for the American people as this country was set up to be.
The real question is... WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? It doesn't matter who we vote for, none of them are honest - Republican or Democrat! George W. stole 2 elections and killed to cover it up (Republican), Obama - A non American citizen Muslim who lies to the American people on a daily basis (Democrat). Who to vote for? Does it even do any good to vote? The presidency goes to the party that can lie, cheat and steal the best with the money to buy the election. Again, WHAT CAN WE REALLY DO ABOUT IT? If we try to start a revolution we get arrested and imprisoned for treason before we can even get the word out. Does ANYONE have an answer to the $64,000 dollar question? WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? Say the magic word and I'll subscribe.

[claudia_lovez_u]

I agree to deport people who have not contribute to this country, people who have committed crimes but why should we send back hardworking people? I know a couple people who are illegals and yes they work very hard, some of them even have two jobs! they take the jobs americans won't take. I agree there is people who take advantege of the welfare and those kinds of services but not all of them do, so why should all pay for the mistakes of others? Most undocumented people(i hate the word illegal aliens or illegals) work very hard and contribute to this country. Its very easy to say deport them all, when we don't know what they went through in their country's to have taken the decision of coming to the United States without documents

[macmacdc]

The provision is, that ?all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.? That means ?subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.? What do we mean by ?complete jurisdiction thereof?? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

[emeralds_green]

Approximately 40% of Mexico's population lives in dire poverty, they own 11% of their country's wealth while the upper 60% has 89%. The country survives partially on those who work here and have money sent back to Mexico. The birth rate among Mexican nationals in Mexico is approximately 2.3, those who reside in the U.S. is 3.6. Children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. have the highest teenage pregnancy and high school drop out rates in the nation, they to are discriminated against the jobs that Americans are willing to do and thereby welfare. However, as seen with those nations who have in effect lived in worse conditions have slowly emerged on the world's stage, interesting their cultures value education and apparently it is paying off.

[Rodeo_Joe]

White people will soon no longer be the majority - hence the PANIC.

This is the FEAR behind the immigration debate.

And Fearmongers are cashing in.

Everything is Transient.

Everything.

[peter776-2009]

America does not need more people in this country who are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate, non-English-speaking, and unlikely to assimilate. We need more immigrants who can contribute to a high-tech economy, and those sorts of immigrants follow the rules and do not run across the Rio Grande at night and enter our country illegally. Everything is transient, including the phenomenon of anchor babies. The writing is on the wall that this phenomenon is about to end.

[patsview]

Social Security (USA)




Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary


2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000


3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible


4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

-----------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
We need to pull that Golden Fleece out from under Congress as "We The People" are the goose that lays their Golden EGG!!!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! GET INSPIRED, GET INFORMED AND GET INVOLVED!!!
APATHY IS THE PROBLEM AS LONG AS WE ARE THERE AND PUT UP WITH IT NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE!!!

God Bless the USA!!!







Copyright ? 2010 craigslist, inc.

[Overruled1]

The problem with your arguments are that while the dominant party in office were democrats during the changes, they were negotiated with Republican law makers at a time when most in government either dem or rep were loyal to america.

I'm going to post later when I have time the rebuttal to your statements.

[wjkno1]

Hey Arizonians!
You should take the advice of Jonathan Swift, and EAT THE BABIES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Follow me on twitter
wjkno1

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-3460_162-6733905.html?assetTypeId=30&messageId=9692649&tag=contentMain;contentBody#ixzz0vUidRgnm