NFAP: Birthright Citizenship Proposal Would Result in "Tax" of $1600 for Every Baby Born in the US

A great new report authored by noted immigration lawyer Margaret Stock makes the case that actual implentation of a birthright citizenship law would create a massive new bureaucracy and result in astronomical costs for American citizens. From NFAP:

Based on current costs to verify the citizenship status of children born overseas to U.S. citizens, changing the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will cost new parents in the United States approximately $600 in government fees to prove the citizenship status of each baby and likely an additional $600 to $1,000 in legal fees. This represents a “tax” of $1,200 to $1,600 on each baby born in the United States, while at the same time doing little to deter illegal entry to the United States. Direct fees to the federal government would reach $2.4 billion a year, based on current estimates.

The report outlines a number of additional consequences.

1. Creating a two-tier American caste system that will result in a significant decrease
in the population of younger U.S. citizens. An estimated 4.7 to 13.5 million Americans would lose their citizenship by 2050, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

2. Increase the size of the shadow economy in the US.

3. Reducing the country's tax base, including contributions to Social Security

4. Reducing the military recruiting base.

5. Creation of a large new bureaucracy to administer documenting entitlement to citizenship.

6. Realistically, the only way to document citizenship will be through a national identification card, something that birthright citizenship advocates should justify.

I've said in the past that given the dramatic changes that would be required to the Constitution as well as to public policy and the incredibly expensive cost of such a system, advocates of birthright citizenship should have the burden of proving to the public that there has been a significant change occurring in the country that justifies such a move. Prove that there has been a significant increase in the number of children born to unauthorized parents over the last few decades. Prove that birth tourists, the subject of periodic anecdotal media reports, represent more than a very tiny percentage of births in this country. Prove that the massive costs associated with a birthright citizenship policy will be more than made up for by other economic benefits.

Comments

[George Chell]

"The law that anyone born in Canada is automatically Canadian is an "outdated" relic from a time when immigrants arrived on a one-way boat ticket, and it leaves Canada's modern welfare state open to exploitation by "birth tourists," according to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney."

When the US lets in as many immigrants in proportion to its population as Canada does, you will have a point. Until then you are full of crap.

[Jack]

The law that anyone born in Canada is automatically Canadian is an "outdated" relic from a time when immigrants arrived on a one-way boat ticket, and it leaves Canada's modern welfare state open to exploitation by "birth tourists," according to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tories+look+eliminate+passport+babies/6255483/story.html#ixzz1oQnnXRY9

[Legal and no longer waiting]

"Most fundamentally, it is immigration not controlled or limited by the government but determined solely by whoever and however many people show up in our country and give birth."

Take out "and give birth" - you don't need that, just need to show up. That's how immigration has worked in the past, is working now, and will work in the future. The government does not control it, it only controls which portion enters legally. If you have not figured that one out... well, not like I counted on your intellectual abilities anyway.

[George Chell]

"Creating a two-tier American caste system that will result in a significant decrease
in the population of younger U.S. citizens. An estimated 4.7 to 13.5 million Americans would lose their citizenship by 2050, according to the Migration Policy Institute."

In the minds of the so-called pro-enforcement people the white fetus belongs to a higher caste than dark skinned children....

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/14/state-5456/

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/06/10/deal-cutting-the-14th-amendment-at-the-intersection-of-racism-and-immigration/

[George Chell]

"Pro-enforcements admit that's why they oppose birthright citizenship...."

because they believe that the life of a fetus, particularly a white fetus is more valuable than a dark skinned Hispanic child. That is the main reason some Repbublicans, majority in the south, want to outlaw abortion, but deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

My view is simple. You want to abolish birth right citizenship, then raise the taxes to pay for enforcing it...sell it to the American people and ask them for higher revenue. You want a Marxist Berlin Wall south of the border, raise taxes to pay for it. You want more defense spending...as McCain and Graham want, raise taxes to pay for it...not run up the debt. However, before we do that we need to make it clear to the American people that most pro-enforcement people are also anti-abortion and that they value the life of a fetus more than they value the life of children...and that is why pro-enforcement people such as Nathan Deal of Georgia who want to abolish birthright citizenship are also virulently anti-choice. They should make it clear that for pro-enforcement people a white fetus is more valuable than a live dark skinned child!

[Jack]

"those children would be born here but would lack legal
status and have no right to stay in the United States."

That's the real reason she cares. Pro-enforcements admit that's why they oppose birthright citizenship while the authors of pro-birthright citizenship articles often try to act like they don't have an immigration-related bias. Having the children of illegal aliens be citizens vs. just another illegally present person is extremely important to open border activists, a cornerstone along with Plyler. Most fundamentally, it is immigration not controlled or limited by the government but determined solely by whoever and however many people show up in our country and give birth. Aside from the informal "points" it gives in hardship claims and greater access to welfare benefits for the family, it's a major feature in anti-deportation demagoguery ("We can't deport the parent(s) of a CITIZEN!").* Mixed-status families are also a favorite justification for mass legalization (now and forever). Look how frightened the open border activists are of this issue--obviously they are concerned that without birthright citizenship the country might get a handle on immigration.

*In fact, as an excuse to not enforce immigration law, it's right in the "Morton memo" list of "Factors to Consider When Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion":

"whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent"

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

[JoeF]

"Mitt Romney's Latest Ad Attacks Santorum's Vote For Sotomayor"

No wonder the Republicans are losing Latinos:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-leads-sixtoone-among-latinos-116475.html

[George Chell]

The antis say we have enough skills in this country and we dont need any foreigners...is this what they mean? Is this their vision for America?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/#/46610838

[Another Voice]

One more nail on losing the Latino vote.

Mitt Romney's Latest Ad Attacks Santorum's Vote For Sotomayor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/mitt-romney-ad-sotomayor_n_1322015.html?ref=latino-voices

[Another Voice]

Radical.....!!! So much for cutting spending and government waste. I am going to go on a limb here and guess that the American Public will eat these arguments up, sadly to say!!!

[George Chell]

Secondly just like the second amendment proponents fear that putting regulation on gun ownership is the first attempt to repeal the amendment, I have every right to worry that repeal of the birth right citizenship is the first step to ban international marriages and who knows perhaps go back to the days when miscegnation was banned in the US....after all folks who oppose birthright citizenship are the same folks who worry about the browning of America, and their kids taking off with an Asian or a Hispanic.

[George Chell]

There was an unsolved mysteries case from 1931 Arizona about an abandoned baby just inside the US border with the US government and the state spending loads of money to find out whether the baby was born to US citizens or inside the border...this at a time of the Great Depression.